User talk:Walkerma/Archive7

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Walkerma. 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.

For other talk page archives see User talk:Walkerma/Archives. Other close archives include:

Archive1 — Archive2 — Archive3 — Archive4 — Archive5 — Archive6 — Archive8 — Archive9 — Archive10

I will mainly be working on inorganic and organometallic stuff. My students will be assigned to upgrading stubs, at least I hope that they will be upgrading them. Then maybe we'll move on to more challenging topics. I am interested in learning more about the accepted format. Smokefoot 06:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds great! Sign up on the project page as a participant and choose something from the worklist that interests you. The stubs idea sounds excellent! Cheers, Walkerma 06:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

My class's editing of ca. 25 stubs should be apparent - SO2Cl2, Dess-Martin, MFP, PuO2, GeCl4, AgF2, H2Se, CdSe,... We will select a whole new set soon, so it would be helpful to us and the Wiki-Chemicals project if someone updated the classification of the Chemicals worklist, because we tend to pursue chemical stubs. Thanks, --Smokefoot 15:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I was slow in responding, I didn't catch the full meaning at first. Thanks for this list, I shall go through these in time. I also saw your new list on your userpage. Listing the articles worked on helps us keep on top of wikifying them and re-assessing them. I just did this with sulfuryl chloride, your student seems to have done a useful expansion of an important compound. It would be best of all for the project if your students picked some stubs (or starts?) from the worklist such as hydrobromic acid, these are a selection of compounds we thought were worth focusing on. Walkerma 06:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, we'll continue our focus on the stubs from your list. The following could be upgraded from stub to start status - PuO2, GeCl4, WF6. And thank you for your cleanup-Wikification on many of of our entries already.--Smokefoot 18:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. The project has appeared dormant because few people have signed up recently. There is no current coordination, but the current people who are signed up are all working on various political articles right now (we have also created templates such as the political campaigns navigation box). Feel free to join up if you want to. Thanks. -Tjss 03:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I would recomend Political campaigns, Campaign finance, and Voter suppression, although those need to be expanded and cleaned-up first. Those seem like the best for a print version of Wikipedia. For a short list of relevant articles, you might try Template:PoliticalCampaigns. -Tjss 20:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I'm going to try and help out more with this project and hopefully get some momentum. I intend on helping with the Work with Wikiprojects and simply expanding needed articles. Is there a WP:TODO for the project? Gflores ^Talk 07:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've contacted everyone for the Hobbies/Recreation Wikiprojects. I've received a couple replies about each having their own lists. (Pokemon, Video games). Should I just link to the lists rather than copying their assessments?

You're right about the History of Poland project, it is active. I do *usually* check the talk pages and see if there have been, not only comments, but replies to those comments. I'm not sure what happened there. I have removed the tag now. Gflores ^Talk 21:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Just an idea. I was thinking... besides the Core Topics, perhaps we should look for Core topics in specific fields. There could be a Core Topics assessment table for individual subtopics. For example, the Math project can have assessments for its essential articles, such as math, Gauss, trigonometry, calculus, algorithm, number, etc. I'm working one for Computer Science, of which I am a member of; it will be worked on here. This may be an idea solely for WikiProjects, completely irrelevant to the 1.0 project at this point. I'm just throwing it out there. :) Thoughts? Gflores ^Talk 19:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Great! You seem to be thinking the same way as Maurreen & myself! Once we go beyond the top level (articles like "Chemistry") in the Core Topics, we need to start categorising things. These have been done to some extent in most of the 1000 lists we link from the Core Topics page, but I personally think we need to set up "trees" to see how we want to organise things. This is because I think it's important to VISUALISE the organisation.

I have created a very crude example on my test page (my tech skills are very limited!). If you click on a down arrow you go to the next (more specialised) level. If you click on an up arrow you go to a broader level. If you click @ you get an article, copyright symbol takes you to the category, and = takes you to a list. As an example, have a go navigating your way through this to iron(III) oxide (only one or two routes available at present, though that may change if I spend more time on it). You should go Chemistry -> Chemical substances -> Inorganic compounds by last group -> oxides -> iron(III) oxide or Fe₂O₃. You can skip a step, since on the Chemical substances page, in the Inorganic compounds column, you can see oxides listed there with a down arrow (should that be a double down arrow?) - oxides are one of the commonest types of inorganic compound. Also, for the 1.0 project, we could put into bold any articles that we think are OK to used for the

project, and leave it un-bolded if it's not.

My old PhD adviser, who wrote the first computer program used in chemistry, always had a huge "tree" of subroutines pinned on the wall to show the complete structure of his program that he was working on. I find something like that helps. Do you think something like this tree works for that? Is there something else that could do the same, but which is clearer, or more efficient, or quicker? It does need an expert in the subject area (that's why I chose chemistry), but we will need that anyway to decide the lower levels of things like Philosophy or Physics or Math (e.g. a list of the 40 most important mathematical theories). There is a "tree" script available for categories (hard to find , but it's there), but IMHO it still presents too narrow a view. The category system (I think) is rather like trying to use road signs only to make a journey - you only see the next town on the sign. I want something that's equivalent to a map, where you can see several of the towns ahead, as well as the general

landscape where you are. I think for WP 1.0, we need Lewis and Clark! Please give my your general thoughts, and feedback on my test tree. Thanks, Walkerma 19:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that is very nicely implemented. I like it. Ideally, that is perfect, it seems a little too complicated as it is (the wikicode). I don't know of any other similar tree system, but I'm sure one could be created in the same manner. It seems that your idea is a more sophisticated form of categorization, which is great. I would love to see this applied for other topics. Gflores ^Talk 22:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Second reply. After reanalyzing your "tree", I have to say that is exactly what I'm looking for! Side note: I'm a little confused as to the scope of this project and the path to achieve this goal. I've left some comments here. Sorry if it sounds like I'm rambling. :) Gflores ^Talk 07:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I did some work on potassium sulfate User:Stone/potassium sulfate, if you have some time, can you have a look? Thank you! Stone 13:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Definitely, thanks for all your work on that. I'll look over it this weekend. Walkerma 19:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Martin. I was thinking of asking the Wikiprojects, etc., about working on the relevant core topics. I wasn't sure whether anyone else was doing that. If not, I'll start. If so, maybe we could meet in the middle somewhere. Maurreen [[User_talk:Maurreen|(talk)]] 03:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

No one has started doing that as yet, maybe we need a new page to keep track of these activities? Or should it go just in the Core Topics table? Our listing of the WikiProjects on Core Topics next to the articles is incomplete, btw. To look at WP 1.0 contacts I would recommend you take a look at the WVWP subproject page, specifically look at the seven (soon to be eight) major categories listed at the top of the page - Arts, etc. Click on the appropriate link there such as Arts, then you get a toc of all the projects. Click on the one you are interested in, and take a look at the contact date and any comments. You can also click on the link "Contact with WPxxxx" which will take you directly to our request for articles on their talk page (unless archived). I will try to help with this as time allows, but I'd really appreciate it if you can get the ball rolling. Cheers, Walkerma 22:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I created oxyanion and Category:Oxyanions and, i think it is fair to say, most of the oxyanion pages. I'm not wedded to the name. Some other people thought different. Let's pick something, and create the best encyclopedia ever.

Elementary question: Explain the difference or a preference for - vs −. Is there some short list of key format preferences? I noticed that someone or something occasionally reformats to the latter.Smokefoot 17:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

This is another issue like the equilibrium arrows. Older browsers (esp. IE) couldn't read −, so we tended to go with -, but nowadays nearly everyone's browser (at least in the West, where most editors work) supports − and we tend to encourage that. I prefer it because the - symbol is too short, and doesn't look like a proper minus sign, but I don't get worked up about it. Note: When I draw minuses in ChemDraw or IsisDraw for my work, I usually switch them into "Symbol" font for the same reason, they look more like minus signs. The equilibrium arrow symbol is similar (though browser support is more recent) - it works on most modern browsers such as Firefox and Opera, even the last few versions of IE, so I was surprised to hear of your problem with it. My old Win98 IE at home doesn't read a lot of the symbols, including even simple arrows, but I just put up with that. Cheers, Walkerma 18:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Please consider joining the History of Science WikiProject.--ragesoss 00:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll post a (big) reply later today after I do some researching. Those are some pivotal questions that need to be answered. I hope you get well soon! :) Gflores ^Talk 17:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I posted a response on the talk page at WP:1.0. I'm very confused about the goal of the project and how the end result will look like. I have a hard time gathering my thoughts for this project, as it's very early on. I think one of the critical things necessary is the implementation of some kind of stable versioning system or article validation. Here is something I did sometime last week and I added a few comments today. It's more of my ramblings, I'd prefer if you don't post it on wp:1.0, just yet. :) It's right here. Cheers. Gflores ^Talk 21:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Another question, shouldn't we be asking the WikiProjects for a list of core topics, as well? See also my post on the WP:1.0.

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Hydrochloric acid 04.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NaconKantari e|t||c|m 20:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. Indeed, I've tagged a number of articles with {{expand}}. I did that following a recent discussion at WP:SFD, replacing {{organic-compound-start}} and {{inorganic-compound-start}}, which say "This (in)organic compound-related article is incomplete. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it." I think this is essentially a request for expansion. I cannot provide specific reasons why these articles should be expanded, maybe the one(s) who placed the previous temlpates can say more. If it's not clear if the expansion tags should stay, I don't in any way insist this. Conscious 18:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Hydrochloric acid 01.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 03:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Meekohi 14:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks for your additions to the Extinct mammals topic at Wikipedia:Article assessment. Please remember to do a broken-down assessment at the individual pages, such as Wikipedia:Article assessment/Extinct mammals/Aurochs. You can add comments to justify your reasoning if you like, but it's not compulsory. violet/riga (t) 18:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I was completely unaware of these sub-pages until just now! I've posted one on the Balearic cave goat already. When I was rating them before I thought, "I wish I could leave more detailed comments somewhere" blissfully unaware that I was supposed to! Thanks, Walkerma 18:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I'll make it clearer in the instructions that there are subpages. The comments you've written are very good, so thanks for your work there. Sorry to be picky, but any chance you can add a score to each individual criteria? A good example can be found at this past assessment.

If you have any comments about article assessment then please feel free to get in touch with me or discuss it on the talk pages - it's all quite new, so all comments are welcome. Thanks again, violet/riga (t) 19:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Numbers now added, thanks. I had looked at 1 or 2 reviews, can't think why I missed that! I'll have to write the Australopithecus review tonight, I have to get on! Walkerma 19:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Very nice! If you're interested in chemical terminology on the level of building a wiki-based thesaurus and dictionary, let me know -- I am the lead developer of the WiktionaryZ project and we work on building a universal, relational wiki-based source of terminology. See our current read-only prototype which uses terms from the GEMET multilingual thesaurus of environmental terminology.--Eloquence* 01:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the contact. The various chemistry wikiprojects have a variety of lists here that may provide helpful source material, many of which are incomplete, and in fact we have also a Dictionary of chemical formulas. However for now I'm busy with work in the real world, and already overextended in my work on Wikipedia, so I'm sorry I can't offer to help out. Good luck with your new project. Walkerma 03:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello,

Sorry about that. I wasn't sure of the formality. I would like to join this wikiproject and am still not certain how I can contribute. Lemme know how, and I would be pleased to help.

Reply (goes to talk) Jgassens 17:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey there,

I saw that you are looking for suggestions of Wiki SCOTUS cases for inclusion to Wikipedia 1.0. I had a few questions I was hoping you could clear up. How many cases do you think will be included? What are the criteria for inclusion? Are you seeking representative cases from different constitutional issues (e.g., First Amendment cases, due process cases, interstate commerce cases, etc.), or just Wiki cases that are simply, well, good articles? I would be glad to make several suggestions, but I will await until I hear from you to tailor my recommendations to your list of criteria (if any).

Let me know if you have any questions. Cheers, RidG [[User_talk:RidG|(talk)]]

Thanks for your response on my talk page and for clarifications of inclusion criteria.

I will go through our SCOTUS cases and try to come up with a list of twenty or so candidates that are, at least in my opinion, good enough for inclusion in WP:1.0. It'll probably take me at least a couple of days, as there is a great number of cases I'd like to review. Please also let me know if an when a SCOTUS hierarchy tree gets constructed - if you need any input on content, I'd be glad to help.

Regarding your questions about Brown and Texas v. Johnson. I think Brown has an excellent historical write-up with a great deal of appropriate factual context that illuminates the social circumstances of the decision. However, from a legal point of view, I would not call it an A-class article in that it devotes a brief paragraph to the actual legal reasoning behind the decision, and has no mention at all of the difficulty and importance of Warren securing a 9-0 opinion (no small feat). I think these aspects are absolutely crucial to a proper understanding of the case, and their omittance is unfortunate.

Texas v. Johnson, on the other hand, does seem to have all the requisite components of an A-class article, at least on initial reading. I'll confess that I have not re-read the full Court opinion of that case in several years, but it seems to cover all the main legal points, and it does evaluate and address the claims presented.

Let me know if you have any questions, and I'll get back to you with the 20-article list shortly. RidG [[User_talk:RidG|(talk)]]

Hey. I came up with a list of twenty important Supreme Court decisions per your request. In doing so, I've realized 1) how incredibly difficult it is to limit the list to 20, and 2) how subjective the list may be. There are certainly several cases that belong on every "landmark decisions" list (such as Marbury v. Madison, for example); however, I have also included several cases that are while not monumentally important at a first glance, have nonetheless been extremely significant in the constitutional development of our country. These are cases such as Wickard v. Filburn or Slaughterhouse Cases.

I would advise the following. See if you can obtain a similar top-20 list from other Supreme Court contributors, and then compare the resulting lists to identify overlapping cases. I am sure that there will easily be at least 20 that appear on numerous lists, and this should help combat whatever inadvertent subjective bias such a selection, when done on an individual level, may produce.

So: here's my list.

1 Calder v. Bull (1798)

2 Marbury v. Madison (1803)

3 Fletcher v. Peck (1810)

4 McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

5 Dredd Scott v. Sanford (1857)

6 Slaughterhouse Cases (1873)

7 Civil Rights Cases (1883)

8 Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

9 Lochner v. New York (1905)

10 Schenck v. United States (1919)

11 Wickard v. Filburn (1942)

12 Korematsu v. United States (1944)

13 Brown v. Board (1954)

14 Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

15 Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

16 Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

17 Roe v. Wade (1973)

18 Texas v. Johnson (1989)

19 Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)

20 United States v. Lopez (1995)

(I have at least 10 other cases that I would love to include, so let me know if your group does want more suggestions.)

Let me know what else I can do to help. Cheers. RidG 08:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, great job on the Antarctica expansion! Thanks for the compliment you gave me a few days ago. It was actually easy as there were so many resources from other Wikipedia articles, reliable sources from national governments and great images to select from, including one WP:FP. I find these type of articles easy to improve as it's mostly information and very little controversy. Even so, I'm surprised it made it past FAC. I may improve some other countries (Mexico) in the future. :) Technology cotf isn't going too well... I just don't know what to add, and it's difficult finding encyclopedic sources.

I see you've done a bit more work with WP:1.0. Let me know if you need some help with anything. I think I'm going to do a proposals page for 1.0 or something similar, if I get a chance. There are a lot ideas out there and I think they need to be sorted out. PS, I found this site recently, it shows article validation by User:Magnus Manske, early developer of Mediawiki. [1] Gflores ^Talk 18:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

That was your first barnstar!? You gotta be kidding me, you deserve many more! I'm not sure if that article validation is just a side-project or will actually be implemented into WP someday. There's discussion dating back to 2004 so it's moving very slowly. :( Do you know article validation has been confirmed to be a feature in WP? I hope so, as it will give WP:1.0 a big boost.

We don't ever give barnstars in chemistry, for some reason, though I've given "free beer" to some folks as a thank you in the past. Regarding article validation, I have a very specific meaning in mind ("How do we know that the article is accurate?") which differs from how the term is (mis)used in some places on Wikipedia. See my comments here.

I haven't really thought too much about the 'proposal'. I'm not sure if proposal was the right word. There are a few things I want to do. One is move our proposals towards 1.0 from the talk page to a new page, as well as have a more general proposal that most people agree with. I want to talk about possible limitations, things to do, and incorporate any other comments and ideas that people have all over Wikipedia. The German WP should also be mentioned and linked. I also think some straw polls may be helpful. I particularly like the organization of Wikipedia:Why_stable_versions, but the page for 1.0 will be different, of course. Tell me any ideas that you have.

Yes, the "Why Stable versions" page is nice, and I completely agree. I also really like the new Wikipedia:Scientific_peer_review page.

In making these changes, I think we need to change the main project page because when a person coming from a WP:1.0 and sees the main page, he does not know how developed and old the project is, the process, what needs to be done, what are the pros and cons, the fact that Jimbo has expressed interest in this project, and more.

Yes! This is exactly what I had in mind!

This will probably need to be discussed elsewhere, but I've been thinking about our Work via Wikiprojects (WvW). Actually, I had two thoughts. I think we should also coordinate with WP:GA, which is basically A-class (I think). When contacting the projects, we should've made some mention of GA. Basically, if they think it follows the criteria for GA, add it there. Since more people seem to be active in GA, it'll receive more validation towards acceptance (or removal) and since we'll be using GAs, we know roughly what the assessment for that article is. The drawback to this is that there's no room for comments. The other articles will need to be examined by us to ensure at least B-Class.

GA began after WVWP, so our early messages naturally didn't mention GA. However both Shanel & I have started using your amended message to WikiProjects that includes mention of GAs. I have signed up for the GA WikiProject partly to help coordinate this, and I expect a lot of cross-fertilisation; Any A-Class articles we find from the WikiProjects can be proposed as GAs, and most GAs can be added to our lists of A-Class articles. Walkerma

Second idea that's been bugging me for a while is that I think we need to ask for core topics from wikiprojects. This is a fusion of Core Topics and WvW and is related more towards improving Wikipedia's essential articles, but it'll also help with 1.0. It tells members the condition of that topic on WP and gives them a to-do list in some ways. Other projects have done a phenomenal job with this (military history, videogames). I did this for WP:Computer science, but it's not categorized. The two projects above is more of what I'm looking for. I don't know just more thoughts. :)

I'd come to exactly the same conclusion as you, mainly through working on the trees - I began to think, "When we do the tree on (say) Egypt, how do we know what are the most important topics in that area?" The obvious solution is to get the WikiProjects to do this for us. Even with the original WVWP requests for publishable articles, one of my hopes was that groups would set up worklists on their most important topics, and I think that idea is now spreading slowly around Wikipedia. WVWP is not likely to stop when we reach the end of our current "sweep", it's all part of an ongoing dialogue. A request for the major topics in each subject would be a natural thing to ask for on the next round. I'd hoped to get a decent looking tree system in place before we did this, so we could ask each project to add into a tree (so they could see how their own subject was being organised), but I suspect that ain't gonna happen unless someone really clever can clean up the tree format sometime soon. Walkerma 05:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I guess it's easier to find what's wrong than fix it, so I said to myself, "{{sofixit}}". Well, I'll try. :)

PS, I've seen some people using both A-class and GA. Honestly, I think they're the basically the same. Do you think the two are synonymous? Or is there a big enough difference to distinguish? Gflores ^Talk 02:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, these mean similar things, but they are not synonymous. We need to be able to look at an article we want in WP1.0 and say, "Yes, that's an A-Class article". If we find 50 articles we think are A-Class, we shouldn't have to submit them all to the GA project and await their decision before we process them! GA is likely to become a more formal process, involving some element of review and debate, but the 1.0 project needs to be able to make its own snap assessments. However, I think it's great that the two are very similar in meaning, because people are now cottoning on to this; "The WP1.0 folks think XXXX is A-Class, let's submit it as a GA." So in effect I think of most A-Class articles as "Potential GAs." There are a few very short GAs which I suspect would not pass muster as A-Class just because of length, but that may be debatable. Walkerma 05:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know I've finished contacting the rest of the Wikiprojects on this page, although I admit I cheated and user AutoWikiBrowser to do it ;)--Shanel 22:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Saw your comments on the GA talk pages, theres gotta be a way to streamline GA, FA, peer review and WP:AA I would have thought that would both help wikipedia 1.0 and address the criticisms of the GA project. I was wondering if you thought there as any mileage in looking at that, or do you think that would be too big an undertaking? As an aside I've been working on CS gas for a while now and was hoping you could give it the once over from a proper chemistry POV. My last organic chemistry was at A-level and that was a while ago, unfortunately I have no access to academic journals apart from what I've been able to find online. Cheers SeanMack 03:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sean, Thanks for your posting on my talk page. I do think it would be wonderful if we could get all of the different projects like WP:1.0, WP:GA, WP:AA, WP:FAC and so on all to work together more smoothly - I wish sometimes we could get everyone together in one (large!) room for a day and agree on some common standards and procedures. However it sounds like you have some specific ideas in mind, I presume relating to the peer review aspect. Can you explain your ideas in more detail? I think that some form of peer review is needed for GA, but it should be quicker and simpler than for FA. Regarding CS gas, I hope it's good, I printed off a copy for one of my students today - he's going to do a poster about CS gas! I'll try to give it a closer look over the next few days. Gan canny, Walkerma 06:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I had nothing definite in mind, however thinking about it, it would make a lot of sense to have the processes for all of these things to be as similar as possible. This would include things like template use etc. I would also like to see a synopsis of each project including most relevant links as a template. This would mean there is no hunting around to see what else you should be looking at when working on articles. With a bit of consistency editors could even jump from one project to the other with the basics already understood. I really have no idea how to go about this though, I'm not experienced enough with the old meta projects and template creation. Just thought it was worth mentioning in case you could help steer something along those line. Regards SeanMack 10:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Your comment helped to crystallise some ideas. I plan to introduce a couple of new navigation boxes that should help bring these groups together more. Thanks for the prodding! Walkerma 01:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I should say, I'm not technically that strong, so I can't do some of the things you suggest, but I think if you & I have a go and do what we can, it may help somewhat. Walkerma 01:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I can always give something a bash if you have something in mind? Ever get a chance to look at CS gas btw? SeanMack 13:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm just glad I didn't start a flame war by changing it :) Thanks for your comment. —Pengo 08:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)