Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

This is an archive of the WP1.0 Core topics discussion page.

Archive 1 covers material before Feb 2006.
Archive 3 will cover material after March 13, 2006.

Stubs & starts

We have about 50 stubs and starts. If we decided to leave them off the first round of articles, we would still have pretty broad coverage. I'm thinking that maybe we should suspend most of them for now. That is, at least for the ones without an associated Wikiproject or similar group, put them aside until we are done with the FA's, A class and B class. Then re-evaluate the situation. What do you think?

Here's a concise list of our stubs and starts classes. Maurreen [[User_talk:Maurreen|(talk)]] 06:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, this list is helpful. :) Gflores ^Talk 00:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Maureen, nice to meet you :) Some of the articles in this below are foundational and of primary importance, such as Country, Environment, [[Ethnic group], religion, society, and technology (the latter of which is now being worked on). It seems we need to keep these most basic articles. I wonder if having an extra column in the table, to denote basic importance (which might be 25 to 50 articles), would help? Then we would know which articles are both very essential and incomplete. This might help with focusing attention on getting a handful or up to a dozen or two articles into good shape. After a first round of most basic articles, that column could also be used to denote next rounds of revision work. This idea might become more relevant as the list grows up to over 150 and towards 200 articles (inevitable?). Vir 01:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

With relevant Wikiproject or similar group

Without Wikiproject

COTW

I started a rudimentary Core Topics Collaboration of the Week at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics/Core topics COTW. Please join in! Maurreen (talk) 03:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. We should definitely try and get the word out. I will notify the members listed about this. Any other interested users should also be messaged. Perhaps this should be mentioned elsewhere as well, like in WP:AID or others?

P.S. I don't know if you know, but your 'sign' is fubar. It doesn't wikilink your User talk:Maurreen|(talk). Gflores ^Talk 07:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge

Can I suggest merging this page somehow with Wikipedia:List of featured articles English Wikipedia should have? Talrias (t | e | c) 13:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Strong oppose I think you misunderstand the purpose of this page.

This page is a project page, a worklist where we keep track of quality & completeness, it is not just a list.
The page seeks to limit itself to the "top level" of 100-200 or so core topics, as mentioned in the first sentence of the page. The list you refer to is at the next level of 1000. Walkerma 16:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

However as you can see from the above discussion, we would like to expand this project to include the page you mention, or one very like it. The choices we are considering (including the one you suggest) are listed in the intro to the project page. We may decide to go in stages, rather than 1000 all at once. We will set up a separate set of pages for it, each with a worklist. Thanks for your interest, and you're welcome to help with this subproject or one of the other WP1.0 subprojects! Walkerma 16:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Folklore

I'd like to put in a comment that folklore could and should be one of the core topics. It is a universally shared aspect of human cultures, like language and music, and has existed for millennia. Actually, the argument could be made that mythology, which is on your list, is a subset of folklore or is that folklore which is both narrative and sacred. (I actually proposed a folklore-stub, and while there were no objections and only one comment questioning the need for it, I hesitated to go forward without more support.) This is part of a longer discussion, and part of a larger project to improve the scope and quality of articles pertaining to folklore, but I would still make the case that this is a core topic despite its having been ignored by Western academics for most of the past couple centuries. Bruxism 04:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

If I had thought of Folklore early enough, it probably would have been on the list. If no one else feels strongly about it, I think it would be good for the second round. Maurreen 03:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Core topics tree

As some of you know, I like to visualise the material, so I have created a "core topics tree" to help organise the articles. I realise that it is very crude at the moment, but I'm assuming people cleverer than me can make it look pretty. A few points on this:

@ means go to the article, ↓ means go to the next level down in the hierarchy (not available yet!), = means go to the list and © means go to that category.
The 8 classifications are stolen from here, I only realised afterwards that this classification belongs to our latest Core topics member, Vir! (Thanks!) I don't mind changing these if people feel strongly. Also, feel free to move articles into different columns if you think they're incorrectly classified at present (classifying reference was very hard!)
If someone can make the lists float to the top instead of in the middle, I'd appreciate it! Likewise any aesthetic things you can do.
I'd like to make this particular list even more useful to us by including our assessment as part of the tree. Ideally I'd like to make our assessments dynamic, so if we change our assessment in one central place, it automatically changes it in ALL places we might have it. I'm interested in this for Work via WikiProjects too, and for when we come to integrate results from the different subprojects together. The closest thing I've seen is here - if you go to one of the hurricane article talk pages, you will see its assessment is included right below the WikiProject banner. I realise this is getting off the tree subject, but should we consider something like this?
If we agree on what articles to include in an expanded list of topics, we could "sprout" eight new trees linked via the down arrows from the 8 classifications shown. These eight "sub-trees" could probably accommodate about 1000-1500 articles (including many original core topics), which is just right for the lists we have available to us.
(added at 17:14, 2 March) As time allows, I will add in portals (would "P" be a good symbol?), as well as suitable lists & categories for the articles, if people like the idea. I've just added it to one article listing, business, as an example. As before, it's ugly, but perhaps an expert can may it look nice. I just like the idea that on 1-2 screens you can get to any core topic, as well as its associated cat, portal and list, about 500 links in all.

Please take a look, edit as you see fit and leave your comments here, thanks. Walkerma 06:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Good work! I like the link on the cyclone assessments; I hadn't seen that before. Maybe you can clarify your 5th point. I'm confused about the next level for a specific column. For example, if we were to go down one more level for Math and Sciences, would we have ~30 sections/columns (or whatever many there are under that particular column)? And then each of these columns, would contain as many needed for 1000-1500 articles? Also, I could probably categorize comp sci (with much debate)... should I? Gflores ^Talk 07:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, nice to meet you :) This is an interesting layout. I hope to engage in this basic content organizing work. I am quite busy now, but I'll have more time this summer. Based on sitting on the main categories awhile, I have edited the heading titles for the Arts and Technology sections into "Arts" and "Technology and Applied Sciences" to conform more to the French main page usage -- these categories make more sense. So, I'm making a few minor edits to the tree topic names. Culture overlaps very much with society. This global aspect, human culture/society, needs a practical category (not two overlapping ones) and an academic category, so "Life and Society" and "Social Sciences" are enough for that it seems. Best, Vir 20:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC) P.S. I'm finding editing the Topic Tree to be a bit of a chore and the society category is too long and the history category too short -- need to sit on how to approach this and the culture/society issue. Vir 20:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The trees often show articles that are two levels below - that's actually very helpful for navigating around quickly. For example mathematics is one level down and algebra is two levels down. For the math & sciences tree, I would expect column headings to be something like: Math, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Computer science, Earth Sciences and perhaps Informatics (or should that be listed with Comp Sci?). Algebra would appear in the Math column in that tree. If we have 8 sub-trees, each containing on average 7 columns of 20 articles, this would give us 8 x 7 x 20 or 1120 articles in total. Of these at least 120 would be also on the top tree, giving us about 1000 new topics (though there may be a few that appear in two sub-trees, like climate under both earth sciences and under geography). Note: I also just added a point 6. Walkerma 17:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see now. One more question... Where will people articles go? Within the subtopics? Or should there be a separate column or table for biographies? Gflores ^Talk 17:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Good question. I think we'd need a separate tree for biographies, and we could make it come off the very top level directly. We don't have any in our core topics so it didn't arise there. In many subjects you can cut up the subject different ways, and I would hope that the trees could address that well. Is George Washington to do with US politics, wars, history, or biography? All four of course, and any cat or tree needs to show that. Incidentally, there is a list of biographical FAs here. Walkerma 21:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Answer to Vir's comments - I noticed the same problem of poor "balance" when setting up the original tree. I think once we get into the next level of trees (such as a "History" tree) we can endeavour to balance out the areas more evenly. The list of core topics does not attempt to be balanced between our choice of column headings, and it probably shouldn't. Thanks a lot for your edits, I know that you've thought a lot about these classifications, so I appreciate your changes. Walkerma 21:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Welcome :) I revised the topics tree by adapting it to use what are pretty close to the French Wikipedia front page main knowledge categories. In some ways, that category scheme seems to make good sense for the tree. I wrote up a longish note about this. Will edit that note some more before posting. Vir 02:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it usefull to put a date in the table about when the last time the articles were checked?

I'm just checking out Religion and painting and both are well beyond "start" IMO,so these tags are confusing since you don't know how up to date they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Technosphere83 (talk • contribs)

Good point. Perhaps the Core topics project needs another table (or more table fields) for more tracking evaluation information, such as the date of last evaluation of the article. Another needed table field is status of nomination and evaluation by other Wikipedia projects, such as the Good article list. There is a text field to the far right in the table that can be used for these -- but a perhaps few simple process tracking boxes might be helpful.

P.S. I looked over the religion article and there is a lot of development there, so I gave it a B-class evaluation. However, I think the painting article still fits the Start category (as defined here: Assessment criteria) because of lack of development of a number of sections and very little referencing -- though a number of nice paintings are given as examples :) And, I suppose one could argue the religion article is still just a start by the criteria -- though it has a lot of work in it. Perhaps we need a category between "Start" and "B-class". Perhaps "C-class", meaning lots of work but still missing significant sections or criteria.

I agree that we should add a date. When I first set the table up I was trying to keep it simple, but it probably needs revising. We should probably adjust the "category" column to match with the organisation Vir (& others?) think(s) fits the tree best - this column is a bit of a hotch-potch at the moment (my fault!), but I had in mind the hierarchical organisation when I put that in. Regarding C-Class, Maurreen & I have discussed that too, though we never really decided. In the original scheme at WP:Chem there was a C-Class, but my colleagues there felt that simpler was better and got rid of it. I have to say that although there are times I wish there was a C, I can see their point. I don't have strong views, except that there are now over 1000 articles on various WikiProjects that have been assessed using the existing system, so it may be a nuisance to change it now. Walkerma 04:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

A few points: 1. I started adding dates in evaluations in the far right text field; 2. I think it would be good if we came to consensus on what category scheme to use--this is major issue; 3. After I wrote the above, I saw that a C evaluation was used early on here. Well, my strong impression, at this time, is that it would be helpful to start a C-class here now. A C-class evaluation is a rather simple way to encourage much needed work on key articles (by virtue of general and particular feedback pointing out needed work) and at the same time perhaps this is a way to avoid some editors feeling bummed about having an article with a lot of work in it being labeled "start". Consistency in article ratings? Well, change makes for fun process negotions... :) Vir 04:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I can go along with those points - what do others think? Walkerma 04:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Good Articles Project: Making use of it

I suggest that whenever we evaluate an article as A-class (and perhaps as good B-class) that we nominate it for the Good Articles, GA, list. This is a list of good but not featured Wikipedia articles. Most A-level core topic articles are already on this list. Some are not. So, I am nominating these A-level articles now: Demographics , Drawing, Gender, Judaism, Natural disaster, Sculpture, and Soccer.

The GA list is one way to bring attention to the articles, possibly generating input. The GA list will give us another level of review to check our rating system -- if something is on our A-list but doesn't make the GA list then our evaluation criteria (or GA's criteria) may need to be looked at. Sorry if the GA list has been brought up before. Still getting oriented here. Vir 01:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

PS. A few of the Core topics B-class articles are on the GA list, such as Agriculture and History of the world. Most B-class articles are not on the GA list. After the nominated A-class articles have been evaluated for the GA list, I guess it makes sense to go ahead and nominate the better B-class articles. If the GA nomination process proves helpful, we might need a way (a table column?) to keep track of article nomination status. Vir 02:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

PPS. One more thought: I suppose a perl script could be written to automate the nomination of new A-class (and perhaps B-class) articles to the GA list. But, that might not be needed until work expands to the 1000 article list.

Absolutely! If some of our B-Class articles are considered GAs, we should probably re-evaluate them, there may have been some improvements or resolved POV disputes. Thanks a lot for taking the initiative. Meanwhile the Work via WikiProjects is generating a lot of A-Class articles, and I have just starting listing all of them on this page (I was going to add in the Core Topics A-Class articles there too). We should be able to supply a lot of GAs, and we can also "steal" a lot of GAs for our lists. As for automating this process - call me old fashioned, but I'd like to keep nominations manual - but automating the listing and organisation would be great! I'd really like it if the list I mentioned were automatically updated each time we assessed another article as A-Class - would that be possible? Thanks, Walkerma 03:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Sounds like there will be a lot of synergy betwixt WikiProjects, the 1.0 project and the GA list (especially if and when the GA list moves from proposal to project, which is perhaps soon). At this point, I would agree that manual nomination of A-class articles (and B-class even) for the GA list would work fine. However, once the first 200 or so articles are mostly finished, then keeping manual track of status and nominations of 1000 articles might be impractical. *Sigh.* I don't write perl scripts. So, whenever a helpful perl programmer shows up, perhaps it is a good idea to ask for extra scripts! ;) Vir 04:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Good Article Evaluations

Worldtraveller, who started the GA list, made helpful evaluations of Demographics and Sculpture, which I nominated for the GA list. He found some issues with the articles and did not promote them to GA status. He left helpful comments on the article's talk pages. I agree with his comments. Hopefully, we will continue to get good reviews like this from GA nominations. I left a note thanking Worldtraveller on his talk page, which is worth a visit -- he has helped develope a lot of interesting, well-written articles.

Based on my looking at the articles and on the GA review, I think Demographics and Sculpture are not A-class. While the articles would just take a bit of work in a few sections to reach A-class, it seems to me they should be re-classified as B-class, so I'm doing that in the core topics table.

Also, someone(s) have promoted the recently nominated Gender and Soccer articles to the GA list. (Note--to condense for table: Gender needs work in its "Etymology and usage" section, which redundantly previews in some detail various points made across the article. The feminist theory and music sub-sections seems stubby, just a few sentences. More inline references needed.) (Posted by Vir ca. 12 March 2006)