Jump to content

Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations/Held nominations/Archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Version 0.7 test release nominations: held articles ARCHIVE 1

This page is an archive of past nominations on Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations/Held nominations. Please do not edit the archived discussions on this page. Place {{subst:Rvha}} above the header of a discussion and {{subst:Rvhb}} under the last line of a discussion when placing it on this page.

Archived nominations

[edit]
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Wikipedia 0.7 Held nomination. Please do not modify it.
[edit]
 Number of votes: 1/1/3
Hold
  1. Funpika 00:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Include
  1. I think it is important enough, but we need to cut some unsourced inaccuracies first before including. WooyiTalk to me? 00:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fail
  1. Massive tag war, and several unsourced statements. If those are fixed, perhaps include, but otherwise, fail it. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Edit war bad. Article bad. We need to get a good article before it hits 0.7, or even 1.0. Ral315 » 07:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fail on quality and unstability Andrewjd 15:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

It is a B-class article of medium importance. Funpika 00:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should try to include this if possible, but only if they reach a consensus on this controversial topic. Walkerma 02:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was leaning towards fail myself, so I will close this as a failure as per above fail comments. Funpika 19:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a Wikipedia 0.7 Held nomination. Please do not modify it.


The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Wikipedia 0.7 Held nomination. Please do not modify it.
[edit]
Number of votes: 3/0/0

I don't see why we need it, and it doesn't seem very important. Eyu100(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 00:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hold
  1. Not even important enough for 1.0. I can state 50 artists/bands that I'd consider more influential than MCR. Who knows, maybe 10 years from now they'll be The Beatles, but now they're not that relevant. Ral315 » 07:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As per Ral315 Andrewjd 15:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Ral315, I doubt that this band will even be around in 10 years anyway. Diez2 06:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Include
Fail
Discussion
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a Wikipedia 0.7 Held nomination. Please do not modify it.


The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Wikipedia 0.7 Held nomination. Please do not modify it.
[edit]
 Number of votes: 0/4/0
Hold
Include
  1. Walkerma 02:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 04:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Drawing Hands, Ascending and Descending, Metamorphosis III - I've come across all of these. An absolutely influential man in the world of art and mathematics. Ral315 » 07:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. JoeSmack Talk 15:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC) - I too know this artist to be world-renowned and has had a major impact.[reply]
Fail
Discussion

M. C. Escher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I haven't heard of him before, and his article does not say that he is very important. The article isn't very good either. Eyu100(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 17:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated on the talk page, its quality appears similar to many other articles already slated for the release version, and to question the relevance of Escher because you "have never heard of him" is shaky reasoning at best. I've asked for a different person to review the entry and provide useful commentary on improving the article if it is warranted for inclusion purposes. *Spark* 18:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: I believe there was more discussion than this, and consensus reached there - I seem to recall I was just enacting the consensus - though I entirely agree with the "Huh" comment. I consider Escher very well known, and indeed my wife taught an entire art lesson this winter based around Escher (and yes, she used that article to help her!). Walkerma 02:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a Wikipedia 0.7 Held nomination. Please do not modify it.


The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Wikipedia 0.7 Held nomination. Please do not modify it.
[edit]
 Number of votes: 1/0/3

Stub. Lincher 23:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hold
Include
Fail
  1. Walkerma 02:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. JoeSmack Talk 15:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC) - it's start Q/low I, no refs.[reply]
  3. Andrewjd 15:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC) per JoeSmack[reply]
Discussion

This isn't a stub now - it's currently a Start, but still pretty sparse. Walkerma 02:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a Wikipedia 0.7 Held nomination. Please do not modify it.


The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Wikipedia 0.7 Held nomination. Please do not modify it.
[edit]
 Number of votes: 3/0/0
Hold
  1. JoeSmack Talk 19:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Andrewjd 19:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Not important at all Diez2 17:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Include
Fail

This article was discussed here and ultimately decided to hold it because of its mid level importance even though it passes WP:CHEMS's asssment criteria for A level quality. JoeSmack Talk 19:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, what does "support" and "oppose" mean up above? Support inclusion or support the hold? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"This page is to discuss whether to hold an article's nomination for later versions. Please follow the format as described below."

Support = Hold (or I am grossly wrong and want to change my vote) Andrewjd 22:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since I imagine I'm not the only one confused by this, I changed the format for new nominations. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thats a good idea. I've also matched this one to all the others, no longer will 'support' be ambiguous. JoeSmack Talk 15:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a Wikipedia 0.7 Held nomination. Please do not modify it.


The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Wikipedia 0.7 Held nomination. Please do not modify it.
[edit]
 Number of votes: 0/0/3

POV/OR-maybe. Lincher 23:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hold
Include
Fail
  1. JoeSmack Talk - Definitely, quality concerns. the article is all over the place - cleanup and OR tags really sink a nom.
  2. I agree with Joe. Walkerma 02:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Same here. Diez2 18:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a Wikipedia 0.7 Held nomination. Please do not modify it.


The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Wikipedia 0.7 Held nomination. Please do not modify it.
[edit]
 Number of votes: 3/0/0

Not important enough for release Andrewjd 17:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hold
Include
Fail
Discussion
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a Wikipedia 0.7 Held nomination. Please do not modify it.


The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Wikipedia 0.7 Held nomination. Please do not modify it.
[edit]
 Number of votes: 3/0/0

Original nomination: That such a topic could be intelligently analyzed and discussed so extensively is an impressive feat. I think this article is exceptional. --Raoul Duke 18:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is not important enough to be included this time. Walkerma 04:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hold
  1. Borderline case, but I vote hold. -RunningOnBrains 07:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Include
Fail
Discussion
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a Wikipedia 0.7 Held nomination. Please do not modify it.


The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Wikipedia 0.7 Held nomination. Please do not modify it.
[edit]
 Number of votes: 3/0/0

Stub.

Hold
  1. Lincher 23:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Walkerma 04:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. -RunningOnBrains 07:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC);[reply]

Include

Fail
Discussion

I reviewed this for V0.7 as part of WP:CORESUP, unaware of Lincher's review, and I came to the same conclusion. Walkerma 04:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a Wikipedia 0.7 Held nomination. Please do not modify it.


The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Wikipedia 0.7 Held nomination. Please do not modify it.
[edit]
  Number of votes: 0/4/0

Original nomination: FA-class, important Heavy Metal group, extremely influential in the Thrash Metal genre. LuciferMorgan 08:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Passes on quality, unsure about importance. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hold
Include
  1. A very important heavy metal group (see my dicussion note). LuciferMorgan 12:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Definitely an important band, IMHO. Walkerma 02:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agree to high importance. Cricket02 02:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Any of the Big Four of Thrash should be notable enough for inclusion. ShadowHalo 20:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fail
Discussion
Slayer are known as one of the "Big Four" of Thrash Metal, a quintet of groups which consist of them, Metallica, Megadeth and Anthrax. They've influenced many musicians, and when a metal band is asked about who they looked up to when they were starting out, nine times out of ten they mention Slayer. As a person who interviews bands, I can attest to this dearly. Without Slayer, much of the heavy metal landscape would be shaped rather differently. Definitely a very important group. LuciferMorgan 12:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a Wikipedia 0.7 Held nomination. Please do not modify it.


The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Wikipedia 0.7 Held nomination. Please do not modify it.
[edit]
 Number of votes: 0/0/3

B, needs wikification. Lincher 23:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hold
Include
Fail
  1. -RunningOnBrains 07:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. - Andrewjd 22:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a Wikipedia 0.7 Held nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Release_Version_Nominations/Held_nominations/Archive1&oldid=1080936779"