Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team

Wikipedia 1.0 — (talk) FAQ — To do
Release version tools Guide — (talk) — (stats)
Article selection process
Release criteria
Review team (FAQ)
"Selection" project (Talk)
Vital articles Level 1 articles Level 2 articles Level 3 articles Level 4 articles Level 5 articles
"Selection" project for kids ((t))
WORK VIA WIKI PROJECTS (talk)
Pushing to 1.0 (talk)
Static content subcom.

If you are new to this page, please see the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/FAQs.

Core topics discussions – Wiki sort discussions – FAs first discussions – Work via WikiProjects discussions – Pushing to 1.0 discussions

Archives

• Archive 1 · Objections archive
• Archive 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 (Sep - Dec 2005)
• Archive 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 (Jan - May 2006)
• Archive 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 ( - Oct 2006)
• Archive 14 ( - Mar 2007) 15 ( - Dec 2007) 16 ( - Jan 2009) 17 ( - Feb 2010)
• Archive 18 ( - Oct 2011) 19 ( - Dec 2015) 20 (Jan 2016 - )

Antarctica

I have nominated Antarctica for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chidgk1 (talk • contribs) 5:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Questions/notices concerning {{R from book}}

Template_talk:R_from_book has some good questions on it that I don't think anyone is monitoring; maybe here is a better place to get them addressed:

1. Should this be used to categorise redirects to books?

2. This should be printworthy by default

3. (my own question, that I didn't bother to write down there) should {{R to author}} really be a shortcut to this template instead of its own template? Seems like the conflation loses info. To author ⊊ from book. Dingolover6969 (talk) 17:16, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

@Dingolover6969:

1. "from" doesn't mean "to". I'd expect that either {{R from writer}} or a general category would apply to most redirects to books. Do you have anything that doesn't fit this?

2. I agree. I've proposed this, along with a bunch of other related changes, at Wikipedia talk:Template index/Redirect pages § Printworthiness defaults.

3. I guess an example of a redirect that would be "to author" but not "from book" would be from some other written work, such as a journal article? If we have redirects like that, then making {{R to author}} its own separate template would make sense to me.

Solomon Ucko (talk) 23:03, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, User:Sollyucko! Regarding 1 and 3, I was writing quite briefly, so the concerns here are not what you've (quite reasonably) assumed I was getting at.

1. The question (this is actually by User:Biexx) is about "if this template should be used on redirects that point to book titles, for example from short names (as I did on The Way to the Top) or alternative names (Blade Runner (1982 novel)Blade Runner (1982 novel)). The language of the template is not clear on this, but it italicises the title of the redirect, which suggests its use. I suppose a similar issue is with {{R from character}} in case of redirects to a fictional character from their alternative name (Peter ParkerPeter Parker, Bruce WayneBruce Wayne and Sheik (Legend of Zelda)Sheik (Legend of Zelda))" The language of the template is currentlyFrom a book: This is a redirect from a book title to a more general, relevant article, such as the author or publisher of the book or to its title in an alternative language., which makes me personally think that a book→book redir would use this template, like the alt language example, even though that's not actually "a more general, relevant article" (it is exactly as general). In fact, I've gone ahead and changed The Way to the Top: The Best Business Advice I Ever Received based on my impression here. Possibly we should tweak the language if this is the intention.

3. The point you raise is a good point on its own. But my original question is along the lines of — I'm not really sure what the point of all these cats are. Why is it important that we categorize things as from a book or from the author of the book? Or from an alternate name or subtopic? If we just want this information for information's sake, rather than some specific technical reason, then it loses information to make R to author an alias for R from book, because then we have no cat for "→author", only "author→" and "book→". There also is no {{R to book}}, for that matter. I hope this makes the query clearer.

I'm glad you're taking a hard look at printworthiness defaults! I think a lot about the current system doesn't make much sense. Dingolover6969 (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Paid research study related to WP 1.0 assessment system

Hi! I wanted to point out a research project related to the WP1.0 system: https://wikiannotate.org/ . The research team I'm working with is seeking experienced editors to do structured article evaluations (using a rubric based on the 1.0 system), with modest payment available for US-based folks. We're hoping to get quite a few more editors involved to get at least a few hundred data points to start with.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

FYI, we've solved the geographic limitations, so this is open to all editors who meet the edit count requirements now.-- Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:04, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:R from legislation § Confusing

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:R from legislation § Confusing. I've started a discussion which may affect the default (un)printworthiness of {{r from legislation}} due to changes to that template. The documentation advises that this project should be notified of changes to the default printworthiness of redirect category templates. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 20:29, 8 June 2026 (UTC)