Jump to content

Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations/Set Nominations

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut

Here, we determine which groups or sets of entries will be eligible for Version 0.7. 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 0.7 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 {{0.7 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:Release Version Nominations/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 0.7 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:Release Version, 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]

Please tag the individual article talk pages with {{0.7 set nom}} to ensure we receive feedback from those watching the articles.

Georgia (U.S. state)

[edit]

General

People

Places

Popular culture

Other

I have listed all FAs, A articles, GAs, former FAs and GAs not included on prior releases as listed on WP:WPGEO, as well as some articles of current interest. - Talk to you later, Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 12:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Liberia

[edit]

All of these are High or Top importance for WP:LIBERIA (except Weah who is Mid), and all are quality of C or above. These are among the best articles covering Liberia. Though the ones chosen for Liberia are good quality, they lack the breadth of coverage to give the reader a good understanding of the nation, especially history with the ACS, Civil War and main history article. Sirleaf is the current president, and one of very few female heads of state in the world. Weah is a world renowned soccer player who made international news for his humanitarian efforts and efforts to end the civil strife, so many people would be familiar with him via his sports career or the later efforts. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

20th Century post-colonial leaders

[edit]
Africa (excluding Middle East)
Caribbean
Asia (excluding Middle East)
Not a good B. While it contains a lot of good content, there are serious flaws in this article. Several highly relevant articles about Marcos' opponents appear nowhere in the text, but instead are hidden away inside a concealed navbox, badly named Template:The Marcoses, which itself is currently threatened with deletion. A link to Rolex 12, twelve of his closest and most powerful advisers, appears only under "See also" without explanation. Who knows what other links may be missing altogether. The whole article needs review by someone with a good knowledge of the subject. Rubywine . talk 23:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Middle East
Europe
  • Lech Wałęsa Weak B, Polish leader, in the Time 100
  • Josip Broz Tito B, VA, Communist leader of Yugoslavia who held the country together for 40 years, and stood up to Stalin.
  • Václav Havel B, led Czechoslovakia out of communism (already nominated separately)
  • Ion Iliescu The main Romanian politician after communism
South America

I wanted to call this set "Nation builders" (a bit snappier!) but for some people like Mobutu or Papa Doc this might have been something of a misnomer! This list tries to cover all of the major figures from the post-colonial era who arose during and after the decline of imperial powers such as the Britain. I tried to limit it - e.g., I've excluded communist leaders from the former Soviet bloc because they are a set to themselves (and were perhaps imperialists like the West). Some were great leaders who are now called "father of the nation" while others simply plundered the nation for their own self aggrandisement. Either way, all were important figures in the 20th century, and we should have them in. Note: We are very short of decent articles on developing nations - our listing currently has a bias towards USA/UK/Canada etc., and this list helps to counter that. Walkerma 05:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No real objections to any, although I do note some neutrality and other tags on some of them, which might be problematic, depending on how much of a challenge there is to the neutrality in each specific case. John Carter 15:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations For An Article At lacks NPOV

[edit]

Dear Wikipedia.Could editors of wikipedia please do something about that embarrassing feel-good article about the Eastern European Dictator (Joseph Broz-the former Yugoslavia). He is portrayed as some sort of pop star and should not be in any nominations other than the article that lacks NPOV. This article is embarrassing considering he was responsible for war crimes, mass massacres, torture & mass imprisonment. One to mention is the Foibe Massacres (there are BBC documentaries). Wikipedia has an article on this so it’s just contradicting itself. You have one feel-good article about a Dictator then you have an article about the Massacres he approved and organized with the Yugoslav Partisan Army. Then there were Death squads in Southern Dalmatia (the Croatians are putting up monuments for the poor victims & their families now). Also it’s important to mention that the Croatian Government is paying compensation to his former victims. Surely a more critical historical article should be written or this present article should be removed altogether. What is next? A Stalin feel-good article? What about the respect towards the poor victims who suffered those awful events? Can the editors please look into this? Sir Floyd (talk) 02:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the Croatians have re-introduced the red checkerboard flag used by the Nazi-collaborating regime, implies ... (sic) 86.149.92.235 (talk) 05:51, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tennis players

[edit]
General
Men players
Women players
Proposed removals from the above, by User-Tennis expert

"Maria Sharapova and Amelie Mauresmo because their records so far hardly support their inclusion among the most important in tennis history."

Response: I included these two because I was trying to include current stars, to anticipate articles that would be popular with readers over the next couple of years. (They don't have to be part of the "absolute best ever" list.) If these two don't meet this description, if they are "has-beens", then please propose a couple of other better choices of current stars. I like tennis, but I'm certainly not that knowledgable, particularly about the current scene. Walkerma 06:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed additions to the above, by User-Tennis expert
Women players
I'd support including Gibson (B, key part of tennis history) and Lenglen (B, 12 singles GS wins, and "first female tennis celebrity". I'd also be OK including Dod, this is quite a decent article and would help us cover the earlier period better. The others I think I'd leave out for now, none of them meet B-Class standard. Walkerma 06:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion;

I reviewed the lists shown, and picked out the top 13 of each gender based on what I perceived to be their overall importance. There is a range of players from throughout tennis history, where there are decent articles available. A couple of the recent women players have won slightly fewer Grand Slam (tennis) titles, but these are people who are still winning things. I belatedly added in the other main tennis pages- the main tournaments and of course Tennis. I will tag things with A/B/GA etc soon, most seem to be B-Class. Walkerma 16:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added some comments on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis. Not sure where they go. Here it is. "Great list. How about Jack Kramer and all 13 players from this list. Also may I suggest ATP Tour, WTA Tour, Davis cup, Fed cup and History of tennis. Thanks!" - RC 04:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for these comments, and this is the right way to give feedback (actually, I've been keeping an eye on the WP:Tennis page, though I usually wait a few days for comments to come in before responding). I think these are reasonable suggestions, though many are only Start-Class and therefore they fall below the desired minimum. I can see the need to include Jack Kramer (Start) and Pancho Gonzales (B), and my omission of Don Budge (Start) was just an oversight (I thought I'd included him!), I would support including all three of these despite two of them being Starts - we need to have a complete set of the very top players. The History of tennis article is good as far as it goes, but it needs to be finished before it can be included. The ATP and WTA are both only Start-Class, and one has cleanup tags on it; I think I'd like to see any serious issues addressed there before we include these, though I agree they are important. The Davis & Fed Cup articles look to be quite usable - there is no assessment, but I'd guess they are reasonable except for a lack of cited sources. I'd like the opinions of people from WP:Tennis on the quality & completeness of these articles, we don't want to put out articles that may be embarrassingly deficient! Thank you, Walkerma 06:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Thanks - RC 12:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a bunch of female players and deleted Maria Sharapova and Amelie Mauresmo because their records so far hardly support their inclusion among the most important in tennis history. Also, I assume we are talking about singles performances only because otherwise the list would have to include players like Elizabeth Ryan, Pam Shriver, Thelma Coyne Long, Natasha Zvereva, Shirley Fry Irvin, Rosemary Casals, and Gigi Fernandez. Tennis expert 15:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent point about players who specialise in doubles- I think we should perhaps have a separate nomination for the real stars of this sort. Regarding the addition of extra players - I was trying to limit it to 13 male, 13 female; anyone from the past had to have achieved a large no. of grand slam wins, etc. I don't think we should include players from outside the top 13/13 right now, unless they are current stars, or really good quality articles. I also think it's wrong to have 29 female players and only 13 male. I formatted the new proposals so people can see the changes being discussed. Walkerma 06:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I looked over the proposed additions, and I think I would support adding the 2 (maybe 3, if you include Dod) articles that are B (or close); these three also seem to be about the most interesting/notable of this group, IMHO (more comments above). The way the criteria work, if we have a B on a reasonably important person (which these are), then they would normally pass a standard nomination. But Start-Class or Stub would normally fail at this level, unless the article were the main Tennis article or another highly important topic. Walkerma 06:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slight reservations about Rosewall, Vines, Connors, as Start class articles, but no objections to any of the others agreed to above. John Carter 15:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Rosewall article is a mess. If there were a class of article below "start," that's where I'd place it. Tennis expert (talk) 02:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations/Set Nominations/Philosophy topics

Napoleon's invasion of Russia in 1812

[edit]

The French invasion of Russia is the turning point in Napoleon's reign and a defining moment in Russian history. Field marshall Kutuzov is still venerated in Russia, many statues, museums and monuments still exist. Furthermore, it is an important moment in military history; it clearly shows how the Russian winter and a tactic of scorched earth can destroy an army 5 times larger than the defending army, a lesson Hitler failed to grasp. To top it off, it also had a big impact on the arts, with Tolstoy's novel War and Peace, generally considered to be one of the most important novels ever written, and Tchaikovsky's 1812 overture. Errabee 01:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice topic, certainly one that would be nice to have covered well. I think a few articles are weak. I think one would want to include Borodino (even though it's a Start, it's pretty good and very important in this context), and Kutozov is probably usable. I think I'd exclude 1812 Overture (out-of-control pop culture section, no real refs), also Berezina, Bagration, Davout and Murat which are weak articles, but keep the rest. Thanks, all of your Russian noms have been very helpful for us IMHO. Walkerma 02:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now included
Not included at this time, but may be reconsidered
OK, I've added all of the ones I mentioned. I'm holding off on rejecting the others completely - the 1812 article has been cleaned up a lot recently, and with a couple of refs it can go through, and the Murat article is also borderline IMHO. Walkerma 05:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

FA

[edit]
  1. Music of the United States
  2. Music of Nigeria
  3. Music of the Lesser Antilles
  4. Music of Maryland
  5. Music of Minnesota
  6. Music of Athens, Georgia

A

[edit]
  1. Music of Albania
  2. Music of Italy
  3. Music of Barbados
  4. Music of Dominica
  5. Music of Hungary
  6. Music of Philadelphia

B

[edit]
  1. Latin American music
  2. Music of Turkey
  3. Jewish music - very poor article, scrappy, random, unsourced. I downgraded it from class B to Start.--Smerus (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Music of the United Kingdom
  5. Music of Malaysia poor on refs
  6. Music of Japan poor on refs
  7. Music of China – Rated B-Class by WikiProject China.
  8. Music of California
  9. Music of Brazil
  10. Music of Taiwan (Looks more like a Start to me, Walkerma)
  11. Music of Cuba B
  12. Music of Jamaica
  13. Music of Scotland
  14. Native American music
  15. Music of England - this article an utter disaster - see discussion below --Smerus 12:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Music of South Africa
  17. Music of Tonga
  18. Music of Croatia
  19. Music of Texas
  20. Blackfoot music
  21. Music of France
  22. Music of Louisiana
  23. Nordic music - now just a redirect. Should be taken out.
  24. Pygmy music
  25. Music of Burkina Faso
  26. Music of Canada
  27. Music of Greece
  28. Music of Iran
  29. Music of Kenya
  30. Music of Mali
  31. Music of Poland
  32. Music of the Philippines
  33. Music of Sudan
  34. Music of Saint Lucia NOW GA
  35. Music of Zambia
  36. Music of Greenland
  37. Music of Brittany
  38. Music of Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles
  39. Music of Catalonia
  40. Music of Wales
  41. Music of New York City
  42. Music of Vojvodina
  43. Music of Serbia
  44. Music of Naples
  45. Music of Vancouver
  46. Ancient Roman music
  47. Music of ancient Greece
  48. Music of Montserrat
  49. Byzantine music
  50. Italian music terminology
  51. Ancient Tamil music
  52. Music of Morocco
  53. Syriac music
  54. Music of South Florida

Start

[edit]
  1. Celtic music
  2. Music of India
  3. Music of Australia
  4. Music of Norway
  5. Music of the Dominican Republic
  6. Music of Slovenia
  7. Arabic music
  8. Music of Michigan
  9. Music of Estonia
  10. Music of the Republic of Macedonia
  11. Music history of the United States (1980s to the present)
  12. Music of immigrant communities in the United States
  13. Central American music
  14. Inuit music
  15. Music of Algeria
  16. Music of Galicia, Cantabria and Asturias
  17. Korean music
  18. Music history of the United States (1940s and 50s)
  19. Music of Zimbabwe
  20. Music of Sweden
  21. Music of Washington, D.C.
  22. Music of Bangladesh
  23. Islamic music
  24. Music of Nebraska
  25. Music of Oregon - article is a mess and needs to be cleaned up extensively before it is included. Katr67 20:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Christian music
  27. Buddhist music
  28. Music of New Jersey
  29. Music of Romania
  30. Music of Switzerland
  31. Music of Chile
  32. Music of Germany
  33. Music of Utah - I just copy-edited this article, most of the references are unreliable and coverage of anything other than contemporary music is weak. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  34. African American music
  35. Kurdish music
  36. Sephardic music
  37. Music of Afghanistan
  38. Music of Argentina
  39. Music of Armenia
  40. Music of Austria
  41. Music of Bhutan
  42. Music of Belize
  43. Music of Belgium
  44. Music of Belarus
  45. Music of Cambodia
  46. Music of Bulgaria
  47. Music of Bosnia and Herzegovina
  48. Music of Cameroon
  49. Music of Cape Verde
  50. Music of the Central African Republic
  51. Music of Chad
  52. Music of Colombia
  53. Music of Cyprus
  54. Music of Côte d'Ivoire
  55. Music of Costa Rica
  56. Music of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
  57. Music of the Czech Republic
  58. Music of Denmark
  59. Music of Ecuador
  60. Music of Egypt
  61. Music of Equatorial Guinea
  62. Music of Eritrea
  63. Music of Gabon
  64. Music of Fiji
  65. Music of Ethiopia
  66. Music of Haiti
  67. Music of Guyana
  68. Music of Grenada
  69. Music of Ghana
  70. Music of Iceland
  71. Music of Indonesia
  72. Music of Iraq
  73. Music of Israel
  74. Music of Kazakhstan
  75. Music of Liechtenstein
  76. Music of Liberia
  77. Music of Lithuania
  78. Music of Mozambique
  79. Music of Mongolia
  80. Music of Moldova
  81. Music of Mexico
  82. Music of Mauritius
  83. Music of Niger
  84. Music of the Netherlands
  85. Music of Namibia
  86. Music of Myanmar
  87. Music of Portugal
  88. Music of Peru
  89. Music of Papua New Guinea
  90. Music of Palau
  91. Music of Pakistan
  92. Music of Oman
  93. Music of Senegal
  94. Music of Samoa
  95. Music of Russia - This article is a disgrace and should not be included until overhauled thoroughly—inaccurate info, inappropriate language for an encyclopedia, little sourcing, no bibliography until I created one. See discussion below. Jonyungk (talk) 17:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Music of Somalia
  97. Music of the Solomon Islands
  98. Music of Slovakia
  99. Music of Singapore
  100. Music of Sierra Leone
  101. Music of Serbia and Montenegro
  102. Music of Sri Lanka
  103. Music of Suriname
  104. Music of Saint Kitts and Nevis
  105. Music of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
  106. Music of Tunisia
  107. Music of Togo
  108. Music of Tanzania
  109. Music of Tajikistan
  110. Music of Turkmenistan
  111. Music of Tuvalu
  112. Music of Uganda
  113. Music of Uruguay
  114. Music of Vietnam
  115. Music of Yemen
  116. Music of North Africa
  117. Music of Polynesia
  118. Music of Manitoba
  119. Music of Canada's Maritimes
  120. Music of Nova Scotia
  121. Music of Quebec
  122. Music of the Faroe Islands
  123. Music of Bengal
  124. Music of Andalusia
  125. Music of Bermuda
  126. Music of Cornwall
  127. Music of the Isle of Man
  128. Music of Alabama
  129. Music of Arizona
  130. Music of Florida
  131. Music of Illinois
  132. Music of Iowa
  133. Music of Kentucky
  134. Music of Massachusetts
  135. Music of Missouri
  136. Music of North Carolina
  137. Music of Ohio
  138. Music of Pennsylvania
  139. Music of Puerto Rico
  140. Music of Tennessee
  141. Music of Virginia
  142. Music of Washington
  143. Music of Wisconsin
  144. Music history of the United States during the colonial era
  145. Music of Oklahoma
  146. Berber music
  147. Ewe music
  148. Hausa music
  149. Music of Saskatchewan
  150. Music of South Carolina
  151. Music of Arkansas
  152. Music of Alaska
  153. Music of Colorado
  154. Music of Connecticut
  155. Music of Maine
  156. Music of North Dakota
  157. Music of Vermont
  158. Music of Tibet
  159. Music of Hong Kong
  160. Music of Uttaranchal
  161. Music of Thrace
  162. Music of Crete
  163. Arapaho music
  164. American folk music
  165. Navajo music
  166. Persian music
  167. Music of Sicily
  168. Music of Sardinia
  169. American classical music
  170. Music of Detroit
  171. Music of Manchester
  172. Music of Bali
  173. Music of New York
  174. Shona music
  175. Music of Vienna
  176. Music of South Korea
  177. Music of North Korea
  178. Music of Austin
  179. Mormon music
  180. Music of Baltimore
  181. Music of Venice
  182. Music of Latium
  183. Music of Tuscany
  184. Music of Florence
  185. Music of the Marche
  186. Music of Milan
  187. Music of Trentino-South Tyrol
  188. Music of El Salvador
  189. Music of Madagascar
  190. Celtic music in Canada
  191. Latin music in the United States
  192. Music of Genoa
  193. Music of Calabria
  194. Music of Lombardy
  195. Music of Liguria
  196. Music of Puglia
  197. Music of Java
  198. Taoist music
  199. Music of Guatemala
  200. Sassanid music
  201. Soviet music
  202. Music history of the United States
  203. Icelandic folk music
  204. Music history of the United States (1960s and 70s)
  205. Music history of the United States (1900-1940)
  206. Music history of the United States in the late 19th century
  207. Music history of the United States during the Civil War era
  208. Music history of the United States to the Civil War
  209. Music of Guadeloupe
  210. Music of Martinique
  211. Music history of Barbados
Discussion

"the Music of Oregon article is a mess and needs to be cleaned up extensively before it is included. Katr67 20:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)" Comment copied over from main talk page.[reply]

the Music of Tennessee article fails to mention Bristol, Tennessee with regard to early country music/bluegrass artists hailing from the Bristol, Tennessee area along with the recording industry making the "Bristol Recordings" of these same artists.

Music of England has been thrownnw into complete disarray by merging with Folk music of England thus linking morris dancing with Elgar and Purcell. Needs complete reorganisation. releasing this with Wikipedia imprimatur would damage Wikipedia's reputation. --Smerus 12:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Exactly what are we supposed to do with a list of 287 articles? I can certainly see including some of the "national music" articles, like "Music of (the United States, Nigeria, the Lesser Antilles, Albania, Italy, Barbados, Dominica, Hungary, Trinidad and Tobago, Ireland, New Zealand, Finland, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Spain, and Thailand - all of which are GA class or better), and maybe several of the "national" B-class articles, but is Music of North Dakota, for instance, really being nominated here? John Carter 15:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I agree that it is rather overwhelming - that's why no one's tackled this task so far, though at least the articles have been rated. I've reviewed all of the FAs and A-Class articles, and I think all of these could be included (none of the ratings have changed in 9 months - remarkable!). I expect the same to be true for the GAs, though I haven't had time to review those yet. Regarding the B-Class, I think we'll have to look over those and choose carefully; those that are Start-Class or below should not make it, IMHO. While I do think Athens, GA and Philly are notable for their contributions to music, I agree that we can manage without a Start-Class article on the Music of North Dakota. I think unless any of the Start-class articles really stands out in terms of importance, we should not include any of those. Walkerma 06:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've included all of the FAs and As that are still FA/A (most), and all of the GAs. I noticed with the GA list that some were tagged as GA-Class yet they didn't look like they'd ever been reviewed for GA - perhaps a project member misunderstood the meaning of a GA tag. I would propose that we now include Music of Saint Lucia, now promoted to GA. I will review the B-Class articles as time allows. Walkerma 04:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just on the off-chance anyone has this on their watchlist, the Music of Zambia article is horrific as is. Needs to be checked for copyvio issues and has dozens of red links throughout. --Not to mention that it has no references. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 18:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Music of Russia: I had hoped to link this article to Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky and The Five, an FA which I recently expanded to give a fuller explanation of the Western vs. Slavic argument prevalent in 19th century Russian arts. This expansion, which is part of a larger effort to revamp Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky and its related articles, necessitated considerable research and my sources, including several authors in the 2001 edition of the New Grove, are solid. I was therefore surprised, horrified and embarrassed in reading this article. Much of the info was inaccurate, at least in the section on 18th and 19th century classical music, the language un-encyclopedic and flowery. The article did not even have a proper bibliography. And the powers that be are attempting to market Wikipedia more aggressively to institutes of higher learning?! No wonder college instructors routinely tell their students not to use Wikipedia for essays and research projects.

Being a firm believer in "If you don't like something on Wikipedia, fix it because that's one reason anybody is allowed to edit it," I have updated some of the info in 18th/19th classical music, added sources from PIT & The Five and created a bibliography. However, if the rest of the article is in as sad a shape as the section on which I worked, it needs a thorough and complete overhaul. Because of my commitment to the Tchaikovsky articles and bios of others related to him, I do not have the time to do so at this juncture. Nevertheless, I wanted to say something for two reasons: to alert others to my concern that including Music in Russia at this point would reflect negatively on Wikipedia and in hope that by my saying something here, someone else would pick up from where I left off.Jonyungk (talk) 17:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be included

[edit]

Besides the ones that I added already (mentioned above), I propose that we add the following:

The remainder will need to be judged from the SelectionBot selection, which wasn't available when this nomination was made. Walkerma (talk) 08:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emotions

[edit]

Stumbled across this idea while reading Paul Ekman, who researched universal human emotions. He'd show hundreds of faces of expression to many many different cultures and peoples, and the ones that had a 95% reliability of one definition across the full range of people we're deemed 'universal' (innate, biologically hardwired, whatever). In the end he found anger, disgust, fear, joy, sadness and surprise were 'universal'.

anyways, about 3 of the 5 have sucky articles, but i decided to comb through {{emotion}} and {{Emotion-footer}} anyhow and grab some noms. i wish more were better.

there we go! most were assessed by WP:PSYCH. JoeSmack Talk 16:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I get a chance to say I Second That Emotion! Anyway, I think we can probably use the first four. I'd fail the last one since it seems to mix together general sadness (I guess the "mood" tag is supposed to indicate this) with clinical depression, which I think is rather different. For all of them, though, I'd like to hear the opinions of the Psych WikiProject, because there are a lot of people who fancy themselves as amateur psychologists, and those people will be tempted to add in their pet theory (probably uncited) into the article. I can't tell the amateurish nonsense from the accepted consensus of the experts. Walkerma 03:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sadness and depression are different articles now, btw. It is just the hatnote that needs replacing. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first three were added in, the last two were failed on quality. Walkerma (talk) 08:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic sports

[edit]

The following articles are all about sports which have been in the past or currently are recognized by the International Olympics Commission.

John Carter (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This had got "lost" inside another nomination. Now we have the SelectionBot, we will check to see what is already included, then review the rest. Walkerma (talk) 07:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really sorry, John, I can't do this list justice. Most will have been selected by the bot via the Olympics WikiProject, but a full manual review will have to wait - otherwise the release of 0.7 will be delayed at least a week. I'll make sure it is thoroughly examined before the next release. Walkerma (talk) 08:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Release_Version_Nominations/Set_Nominations&oldid=802144664"