Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Version 0.5 Set Nominations

Wikipedia 1.0 — (talk)
FAQ — To do
Release version tools
Guide — (talk) — (stats)
Article selection process
(talk)
Version 0.8 bot selection
Version 0.8 feedback
IRC channel (IRC)
Release criteria
Review team (FAQ)
Version 0.8 release
(manual selection) (t)
"Selection" project (Talk)

schools selection
Offline WP for Indian Schools

CORE TOPICS
CORE SUPPLEMENT
Core topics - 1,000
(Talk) (COTF) (bot)
TORRENT (Talk)
"Selection" project for kids ((t))
WORK VIA WIKI
PROJECTS (talk)
Pushing to 1.0 (talk)
Static content subcom.

Here, we determine which groups or sets of entries will be eligible for Version 0.5. A set may consist of a group of interrelated topics (such as Proton, Neutron, and Electron), or a major topic and its various subarticles (such as Canada and History of Canada). These entries will be chosen based on overall importance, quality and stability.

Any article may be nominated to be part of a set, but sets are generally expected to have at least one article eligible for individual nomination for Version 0.5 under the release criteria. The rest of the set would be considered part of the "completeness" clause of the release criteria. For the sake of completeness, articles that have already been accepted may be re-nominated as part of a different set: Please note this in your nominations.

Nomination procedure edit

  1. Place {{0.5 set nom|name of your set}} on the talk page of one of the nominated articles, replacing "name of your set" with the name of the nominated set. Make sure the set's name is unique, and a clear identification of the scope of the set (for example, "Subatomic Particles" or "Canada and related articles").
  2. From there, click on the "Discuss this nomination" link.
  3. Place ===name of nominated set=== at the top, replacing "name of.." with the name of your nomination.
  4. Below it, create a bulleted list of all articles which will make up the set. Note any particular statuses (FA, GA, VA, etc) next to those articles.
  5. Below that, explain why you feel the set of articles deserves nomination. Cover both the articles' importance and quality.
  6. Copy this text: {{Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Version 0.5 Set Nominations/name of nominated set}}, then edit this page, pasting the template at the top. Replace "name of..." with the name of your nomination.
  7. Place the same template from step 1 on the talk pages of all nominated articles, making sure they all point to the same page. Articles considered part of a set but already exist in 0.5 do not have to be nominated a second time.

Nomination discussion edit

The initially nominated list does not necessarily have to resemble the finally passed list. Anyone may request that articles be added or removed from the list; with general consensus (or consent of the nominator) the article may be freely added or removed. Otherwise, users may support or oppose the nomination as with any other procedure.

Once discussion has generated a consensus, a member of the Version 1.0 Editorial Team may close the nomination after discussion has died down, either passing it (by moving the set and its contents to Wikipedia:Version 0.5, passing them as if they were nominated individually), or failing it. Either way, all discussions will be archived.

Once a set has passed, articles can be added to it through the individual article nomination process.

Nominations edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was include all but Marfan syndrome and Von Willebrand disease. Titoxd(?!?) 02:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic disorders edit

These are important articles, the most common genetic disorders. WikiProject Medical Genetics works on these. NCurse work 06:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No way! It is the problem of WikiProject Medical Genetics. We started to work one week ago, and we're active. Anyway, Medicine wikiproject is not active. How many active participants we have? Have a look at the history of medicine project page. :) I'll fix these, just give me some days. NCurse work 06:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... so should we pass these now or wait instead? Titoxd(?!?) 05:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Currently I'm on wikiholiday. And I can't fix all of these articles now. But the Medical WikiProject is active and works hard. So for the end of august, every article will be ready. NCurse work 07:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Currently, I recommend setting the list aside for now, bringing it back out when the Project feels the articles are ready. If nothing else so that the later versions get in instead of the current ones. Nifboy 06:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With tear on my face I must say ok. :( We will work harder... NCurse work 08:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the list. It seems that all articles are A-B or FA-class. NCurse   work 15:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked over these - sorry I didn't see your update note earlier. I would have classified Albinism and Color blindness as only B-Class based on references, but the Downs article is now FA. While accepting that the first two and most of the Bs are poorly referenced, I think the articles are all of usable quality. The topics are nearly all fairly important disorders, Downs particularly so IMHO. Therefore I would be OK with including the list as is. Walkerma 02:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We'd also include:

NCurse work 07:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we could add in the first and last of these, they are both very nice articles, but the middle two look to be poor Bs and they don't have the importance of something like Down syndrome.

Proposal based on the above, listed by Walkerma 04:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Include:
Reject:

Consensus:

Support:
Oppose:
Amend: (give specific changes)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ideologies & philosophical movements edit

This is the original proposal; for the revised proposal see the list below.

Seems to be a set to include because political aspects are in minority in the release. Lincher 15:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are some really well-referenced articles here, but also a number of real duds here. Economism, Epicureanism, Marxism, Relativism, Self-ownership, Social Market Economy, and to a lesser extent skepticism all seem to be very sparesly sourced. Because this is a controversial/frequently-disputed subject area, I wouldn't mind seeing it pared down; all those POV/disputed tags are why the subject area is relatively weak, after all. Nifboy 16:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A very nice set, sorry I took a while to look at it. I think there are lot of nice articles on important topics, though Nifboy is right about some being poor. I'd accept Marxism - it's a very important topic - but reject the other articles Nifboy mentions. If anarchism didn't have a POV tag I'd have been surprised! Thanks for putting this together! Walkerma 04:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice articles, and we should definitely consider including some in the release. However, since the scope of V0.5 is rather small (1000-2000 articles I believe), to enforce balance, we shouldn't add more than 5-10 of these to the release. I suggest removing from this list all POV and disputed articles, then voting for the 5-10 most important. Alex Nisnevich 02:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, based on comments above, here is a subset of the list:

Revised list

Discussion on revised list Bearing in mind that some of these are philosophical and some are political, I think we can include all 16 of the revised list. Alex, one reason that the list was offered here was to try to restore balance, because these areas are under-represented at present. Also, my experience here at V0.5 is that getting a nice body of related articles like this on important topics is very valuable; if you end up with (say) capitalism but not socialism it severely weakens the listing. So I propose we keep all 16. Walkerma 04:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, looking over the list, I agree with you that these are all important articles to include in V0.5. Alex Nisnevich 16:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deities & Religions edit

Underpopulated section, hope some of these articles can be added to the project. Lincher 16:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it's a good idea to mix religions and particular deities in a single discussion. Having said that, a few other ones to consider:
Kirill Lokshin 03:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with you but can't really not mix both religions & deities for the quality of deity articles is too poor. (Should I try and make more sets?) Lincher 14:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I took a while to comment. This is a good list of important topics, and a set ensures people don't complain too much of bias! I see Quetzalcoatl has been assessed as a B now, maybe it's improved - it looks to me like a poor B. I would propose accepting the full list, including Kirill's additions. Any objections? Walkerma 04:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The list seems a bit incomplete, IMO, as there are several Greek dieties, but not a single Roman god or goddess. Adding these should be all right, although I'm still iffy about Osiris, it being Start-Class and all... Titoxd(?!?) 04:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, Tito, though I would consider the Greek gods more important, since the Romans basically just renamed the Greek gods (Jupiter=Zeus, etc.). As for Osiris, he is looking distinctly better now, and has been rightly ranked B by the Ancient Egypt project. Walkerma 01:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... fair point about Osiris, although I'd still like a few Roman dieties. Roman mythology doesn't give much justice to the Roman culture. Titoxd(?!?) 03:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The mythology article does at least list the major Roman deities and give pictures - that may be worth something. Apollo is a good article. Care to pick some, bearing in mind that for balance we only want 2 or 3? If only they had been monotheistic this would've been so much easier! Walkerma 03:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Final discussion before inclusion on Friday

OK, let's include all of the original list, plus Kirill's list, and also Roman mythology and Apollo. I'll add these on Friday barring any objections. Walkerma 04:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other Version 0.5 pages edit

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Version_0.5_Set_Nominations&oldid=147601652"