Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-23/Dispatches

Oddity

Here's a (small) oddity. I happened to find myself at Talk:Henry_Ford and I note that all of the projects rate it B-class, but the version 1.0 team rates it A-class. I'm thinking that's a mistake... --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the time the {{WP1.0}} tag was added, WikiProject Michigan called the article an A-Class article. Most likely, the class parameter wasn't updated after it was downgraded. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is someone going to finish the description of the Grading scheme? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain what exactly you want? I though that most of the article was about the grading scheme....! Walkerma (talk) 04:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A one- or two-sentence summary that describes each "grade" in the scheme. "A typical stub is x, while a start class article also has y and B-class includes z." (That is, take into account that most editors reading this page will never have dealt with this scheme; I haven' engaged it much beyond what to do when an FA is defeatured, and if I have to assess anything as to stub, start, or B, I'll have to go read the whole thing. A brief summary for the uninitiated is needed.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Now done. Is it ready now? Walkerma (talk) 16:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When does the poll close? Will you add that? The Signpost always publishes several days late, so that can still be added, and ... it's a Wiki ... never done :-)) But it looks great so far; I now have a better understanding what assessment is about. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In theory we will close it at 0300h UTC on June 18th. At present the vote (for the new C-Class) is running around 4:3 in favor, and from the comments I'd say the overall consensus is probably running at a similar ratio. We can extend the poll if the Signpost comes out in time, but I'd like to give advance warning. Having done the earlier publication date, I think I'd like to use the Signpost to promote the poll if possible, but if necessary we can just use it to promote the result of the poll. When will this be published? Walkerma (talk) 17:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost is published ... whenever Ral315 publishes it. Sometimes on time, sometimes three days late, sometimes five days late. Just keep the page as updated as you can. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the grading scheme really a common system?

Some people think the A,B,Start,Stub classes are free for the WikiProjects to use or not. Others think that they should be standard and have the same meaning across all projects. Based on the history of the Version 1.0 project, I think the latter interpretation is correct. But the way things are going now, the grading scheme has been co-opted for the projects' own use and the Version 1.0 project became an incidental thing. --seav (talk) 04:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I can't decipher what you're asking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 1.0 project set up the system and still maintains the bot, and we oversaw the recent C-Class poll. It remains the coordinating project for assessment. It was expected that the projects would adapt things to their own needs, though it is obviously better if "B-Class" (say) means the same to all. The 1.0 project is using the data from all the assessments to compile a DVD release for this autumn. Walkerma (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poll results

I just glanced for the first time; the poll results appear at a quick glance to be mixed and almost an even split, particularly after factoring in neutrals, so unless I'm missing something, I suggest we adjust this wording to reflect split opinion, and explain why it was split (summarize the pro and cons):

The poll results indicate a good deal of support for a fifth level (C-Class), with many believing it will give a more refined scheme without seriously compromising reliability.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now ready to publish?

I updated the effects of the C-Class issue as requested (although the goalposts are moving as I type this!). Regarding the examples of Top-Stub and FA-Low, such examples are both rare and hard to find; if you find a well-known Top-importance article like Star Wars/WP:Films, it's unlikely to be a Stub, and a Low-Importance article in any project is not well-known by definition. But I think most people will understand what the Judiciary of Australis is, and that it's important for WP:Australia, and a click on the link will explain more.

Do you think we need to elaborate on closing of the poll? There is a link to the relevant section, but we can copy over some of that section into the Dispatch if you think it's needed. My only concern is that superficial coverage of a long/complex debate may invite drive-by criticisms from those who weren't involved, and at this point we are committed to the change anyway. (I spent around 12 hours studying every comment and weighing the factors before I declared the final decision.) What do you think?

Is it ready for publication now? Walkerma (talk) 19:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's in good shape now; this is the latest I've ever seen the Signpost, so I don't know what's up with publication. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]