Wikipedia talk:Version 0.5 Nominations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia 1.0 Projects (talk)
Main bot list (talk) — (stats)
Release criteria
Review team
Release Version (t) (Nominations) (t) [You can help]
Version 0.5 (t) (ending) V0.5 to do — V0.5 bot list
CORE TOPICS CORE SUPPLEMENT Core topics - 1,000 (Talk) (COTF) (bot)
TORRENT (Talk)
"Selection" project (Talk)
WORK VIA WIKI PROJECTS (talk) Full list Arts Econ/Business Hobbies Humanities Science Technology Places
Pushing to 1.0 (talk)
Static content subcom.

• /Archive 1
• /Archive 2

Contents 1 Chemical elements 2 Snapshot 3 Category 4 Review of selected articles 5 DAB pages, redirects 6 Request for comments 7 Biographies to add 8 Missing articles 9 San Francisco 10 End of reviewing 11 Set nomination reviews to close? 12 Main articles of a subject (Literature: Literature, Geology and _:Geology, _) 13 Reviewing is done

[edit] Chemical elements

I see some elements appearing in 0.5, and this prompts me to ask a question I've wondered for many months - what should we include? As a chemist myself, I'm pretty familiar with the element articles, and most of them are at least B-Class. It seems to me that we should definitely have elements like iron and oxygen, but beyond that it's debatable. So let's debate it, then I'll put together a set nomination. Which should we go for? I think I favour option 2 or 3, though of course I'd most like 4!

Option 1

Only the most familiar 20 or so elements like copper and hydrogen.

Option 2

All of the main group elements up to barium, plus lead and the commoner transition metals like gold and platinum, about 50 in all.

Option 3

All of the main group elements up to barium and all d-block transition metals up to mercury, also include radon, radium, thorium, uranium and plutonium from the radioactives. Omit the lanthanides, except for lanthanum, cerium and samarium (note - much of my research uses elements like dysprosium!). Around 80 in all.

Option 4

Just include the whole lot of them (those that have been discovered) around 114 of them.

Walkerma 07:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

See Periodic table (standard). The main group is groups 1, 2, then 13-end. Walkerma 07:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The short answer is that I would not object to including all of them.

The longer answer -- None of them are trivia. Including all might make us heavy in chemistry, but at least we'd be heavy in an important area, in my view. The elements are close to the top of the tree. They are a finite set and a reasonable number. If you are confident of their quality, then I think they should all be included. Maurreen 08:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, since this has been started here, if we get a clear consensus, any which way, we could maybe skip the set nomination stage. Maurreen 08:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Maurreen +1! I think if we include all europian countries, all planets, then we should include all of the elements. Of course, if there is no stub among them. NCurse _work 09:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree totally. This is the kind of thing that even a respectable childrens encyclopedia wouldnt omit. At the very least, the natural elements, chemical element, and periodic table -Runningonbrains 00:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Snapshot

Should the review team download the most current snapshot when the nominations end? This will ensure that articles already passed do not fail (NPOV, etc). In addition, it would act like a stable version of all the articles. The nominated and passed notices would still go on the article talk pages. Eyu100 18:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The bot records the version it found on the day we passed the article, as well as the current version - I would suggest we compare these two as we compile things for publication. Does this sound OK? As for categories - good point, I'll ask Oleg tonight. Walkerma 21:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does sound OK. Eyu100 16:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category

Can someone have the bot list categories also? Eyu100 18:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Review of selected articles

Where should an article be listed for review if it's suitability is questioned? I do not think Laurence Olivier is anywhere near being a good article, let alone suitable for inclusion here. It's very incomplete, discusses selected stage roles and almost no film roles. It seems to have been approved by the same editor who has made most of the edits to the article itself(this edit), which is contrary to any concept of having an article reviewed impartially. Rossrs 01:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this, I saw your comments from the delisting. I'm so glad to see a knowledgable critique - despite my limited knowledge I have reviewed several actors for V0.5 and I might well have missed this. I see that the article was listed by someone who is not on the review team, so that is cause enough to delist it. However, since it is GA Collaboration of the Week, perhaps that will help fix the problems you noted - and Larry certainly is a key actor we would like to include. Many thanks for your help! Walkerma 03:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DAB pages, redirects

One of the problems I had with Bozmo's first cut was I could not find China - it was listed as People's Republic of China. China is listed on the CD now, so that one won't be a problem, but others may. Great job guys - I am still keen on the process - how to burn my CD from my category list, with cleanups, etc. Wizzy…☎ 09:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Wizzy, it seems you're a "Wiz" at the software end, and we need to make the articles searchable/findable etc. Would you be able to help us this autumn as we turn our list of articles into a piece of plastic and a Torrent download? Including DAB pages, redirects - this is certainly an important part of the process. Thanks, Walkerma 17:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comments

I have placed several nominations at Wikipedia:Version 0.5 Set Nominations. In keeping with our emphasis on places, I nominated a set of major rivers, and also a compilation of seas, lakes and waterways. (I'm aware we still need many more cities!) I based the choices principally on importance (though some were omitted for quality reasons), so there are a few "Start" class ones - but many of these are not so different from some brief Britannica entries, they are often short & unreferenced rather than bad. I also proposed some chemical elements, the consensus seemed to be for the complete set, but please add your comments there too. These nominations together should add around 200 key articles to V0.5 if they pass, which should help our balance and our totals a lot. Each involved or will involve several hours of work for me, so I'd appreciate some feedback, even if you just glance at my choices, or check over a couple of articles. Thanks! Walkerma 05:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Rivers: – good list! I agree on including the Indus and the Danube.

Proposed additions:

• I think including the Darling River calls for including also the Murray River - similar importance, length.
• Similarly, Euphrates --> Tigris.
• Perhaps also the Jordan River for its religious importance and as part of the Great Rift Valley.

The current Murray article is similar in quality to the Darling; the current Tigris and Jordan river articles are of poor B quality. RickJP 10:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biographies to add

The Category:A-Class_biography_articles is full of A-class articles that are of Mid to High importance for biographies (I don't know for the whole 0.5 release project though) but since I do not have the time to add all these nominations going through and adding the ones that could be used may help countering some systemic bias or help in further selecting better than average articles. Lincher 16:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think all the A-Class/High importance articles should get automatic nomination. Would others be OK with that? To reach high importance in this WikiProject you have to be REALLY important. Some aren't tagged with importance, if time we should review them. With only one month left, some may have to wait for V0.7 or whatever comes next. Walkerma 19:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this might be better off for 0.7 in any case, since we barely have time to review the FA backlog as it is; but I think that, for the next release, we can probably automatically nominate all FA, A, and GA articles into Maurreen's "showcase" portion. Kirill Lokshin 20:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I think that at this point, we should be pretty picky about additions to the 0.5. Maurreen 20:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't looked at that yet, but some wikiprojects have a vastly different ideas about what's important.

A broader group has compiled Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Core biographies, also at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Biographies, which is pretty balanced. Maurreen 20:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem if you guys can't really use the list until 0.7 (the list was mostly created by kingboyk & Lincher(me)). Can I help in some way? I was thinking of reviewing articles (meaning fact-checking, looking for accuracy, if they are balanced). Please let me know how I can help and if so, how should I help. The project is a bit overwhelming for me to tackle on because I don't see any instructions for the after-nomination process and the information is well spread all over the place. Tell me HOW I can help. Lincher 13:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Lincher.

Cyrus the Great, Henry Ford and Plato from your list overlap with Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Core biographies and could be added to Wikipedia:Version 0.5 Nominations/Missing articles#Nominations#Biographies.

If you are especially interested in biographies, a number of them still need to be reviewed to decide whether they will be included.

At Wikipedia:Version 0.5 Nominations/Missing articles#Nominations#Biographies:

Politicians and leaders,

1. Winston Churchill
2.  B  Napoleon I of France

Philosophers

1.  B  Confucius

Scientists

1. Charles Darwin
2. Albert Einstein
3. Sigmund Freud
4. Galileo Galilei
5. Isaac Newton

At Wikipedia:Version 0.5 Nominations:

• 8 under Arts
• 2 under Everyday Life
• 5 under History Miscellaneous
• 3 under Military History
• 9 under Language and Communication
• 7 under Philosophy and Religion
• 3 under Social Science and Society

Maurreen 16:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Since I'm not sure how to add, I've commented on the biography you added for me to assess for V0.5. Here goes with the comments :

Politicians and leaders,

1. Winston Churchill

   GA close to A (minor adjustment needed, a bit unbalanced, needs more citations) INCLUDE.

2.  B  Napoleon I of France

   A-class,(only lacks in citation) INCLUDE.

Philosophers

1.  B  Confucius

   B-class (lacks information on life, doctrines & other stuff ... not well-balanced but good information ... also lacks in citations) INCLUDE (cause needed)

Scientists

1. Charles Darwin

   If not A, then so close (might lack in inline citations but well-referenced) INCLUDE as a set with subarticles.

2. Albert Einstein

   INCLUDE ... FA.

3. Sigmund Freud

   B-class (lacks in inline citations for this man is a controversial person) INCLUDE if really needed.

4. Galileo Galilei

   INCLUDE ... FA.

5. Isaac Newton

   INCLUDE ... FA.

Lincher 17:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing articles

I have created Wikipedia:Version 0.5 Nominations/Missing articles 21:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Should be easy to check these off now. Walkerma 22:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] San Francisco

I see that the article for San Francisco, California was nomiated back in June and I assume its continued presence on this list means that no decision has yet been taken. Not sure what the timetable for reviewing it should/will be. In any case, I just would like to point out that the San Francisco article just became a Featured Article.--DaveOinSF 02:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Great, I'll tag it right now. Walkerma 02:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I should clarify, since I nominated it - as a global city, it auto-qualifies on importance, and as a new FA it qualifies on quality and is autonominated. I have been the reviewer for all the Places FAs anyway. Walkerma 04:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] End of reviewing

There is a lot of work still left at Wikipedia:Version 0.5/To do, but I don't think we should stop this on September 30th. We have completed most of the countries and most sections of FAs, but for balance IMHO we need more cities and biographies. Therefore I propose we continue reviewing until we complete all outstanding general nominations, as well as all countries, all global cities, core topics and the top 200 core biographies. I'd guess we can complete these well before the end of October, particularly if others can pitch in and each do at least a dozen more reviews. Is this OK? Walkerma 10:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'll concentrate on FA reviews in the next few days in order to have the full FA list included in Version 0.5. NCurse _work 10:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I finished the biographies list tonight, but I still need to add the listings. I'll do that tomorrow, I need to get to bed! Walkerma 06:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Set nomination reviews to close?

Unless we decide to add in a selection of topical material at the last minute (as was suggested at one point), we should wind up the set nominations reviews in the next couple of days. The rivers list and centuries list have already been partially added into version 0.5, but the genetic disorders, lakes & seas, deities & religions and the ideologies ("isms") lists have not. If you have any final comments, please add them in the next couple of days. Thanks! Walkerma 02:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

We finish the genetic disorder list in set nominations. My question: how to include the rest of FAs? I'd do it if everybody agrees. And I could make a list of articles I'd not include. NCurse _work 06:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

If you're adding in more articles to the set, then we need to give people a few days to look at them. Tourette's is well-known and A-Class, but are the others (all Bs) important enough?

Regarding FAs, I think you should look over an article (even if only briefly) before you add it to Version 0.5. We have not allowed any articles into the collection without at least a cursory review, even with Core Topics. What I've done is to cherry pick the most important topics from the FA list, because what we need most at this point is not more FAs, it's more FAs on important topics. So instead of taking all of a section except X, Y, Z (real trivia), I suggest taking ONLY A, B, C, D, E, F, G (important topics) and leaving many less important FAs behind. You can see I've done that with politics FAs; there are still a few I need to add, but that is a very fast way to get lots of well-written articles on important topics passed quickly. What do you & others think of this approach? Walkerma 21:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Main articles of a subject (Literature: Literature, Geology and _:Geology, _)

Right now, we put these in the miscellaneous section, but they should probably have their own section because they are very important. Also, a person looking for "Literature" would not be able to find it. There should either be a "main articles" section for each subject or an entire top-level tree containing all the other top-level trees and their main articles. Which one would work better — any thoughts? Eyu100 13:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like the basis of an excellent idea. We'll have to have a thorough discussion about how we structure the final version 0.5 product - I think it will look very different! Walkerma 17:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reviewing is done

All the articles here have been reviewed. Eyu100 20:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations guys, I know you worked hard on this!! --plange 21:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's a big relief, thanks a lot Eyu100. There are still lots of articles on the supplementary lists to do though! The countries and FAs are almost done, the global cities and bios are about halfway reviewed. Hopefully we can finish these before the end of the month. Walkerma 21:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

All of the entries on the global cities list has now been reviewed. I included a few Start-class, but that's because I expect a complete city article to be very extensive - these were generally articles that had good coverage of some areas but little or none of others, but the articles were still mostly long and decent in coverage. I did reject New Delhi, but we do have a very nice Delhi article so I don't think that matters too much. I think this list has provided a very worthwhile list, and often it's more useful to include a global city than a capital city - for example Frankfurt is much more important than Bonn. We now have a good solid coverage of cities. However, the result does tend to favour cities in developed countries, particularly European cities (which tend to do more international trade), so I think we should aim to include more major cities from Africa (in particular) in the next release. One problem, though, I suspect that many of these articles may be Start-class or even stubs, based on the few African cities such as Addis Ababa that I did review. I need to go to bed now - I will add the last few cities into the V0.5 listing tomorrow. Then I'll finish off the countries list next week (only a few), and the Core topics review (also only a few); that leaves mainly the biographies that need work. We're almost there! Walkerma 05:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)