Wikipedia talk:Version 0.5 Set Nominations

Template

Please see Template talk:0.5 set nom. Maurreen 04:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Place to discuss noms

Good work, and you're quick.

I wonder if it would be easier to discuss them on the main nominations page. I guess that would depend how many nominations you get. I expect it would be lower than the main page for individual nominations. 04:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the transclusion of nomination pages (As in FAC, PR, and AFD, to name a few) means we get it both ways. I kind of expect the discussion (since it's a tiny bit more than a pass/fail vote, what with additions and all) to be significant enough for nominations to take up their own page. Nifboy 05:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, just a thought. Thanks for the quick response. Maurreen 05:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Test nomination

As both a test and an example, I've nominated a "set" of slightly-related articles that should be on 0.5 but aren't. Nifboy 06:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The procedure seems to be good. NCurse_work 08:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Team sports test

I went to add my comments on the test, but apparently the discussion is complete.

I wanted to support strongly the inclusion of Australian rules football in the set (it claims to be the #1 spectator sport in Oz), and to support less strongly the Canadian football article (less notable, but a decent article). It seems that although both of these were suggested, neither of them received set nom tags. I had assumed that Tito's "pass the rest" would include these two, is this right? This isn't clear, we need to make sure in future all loose ends are tied up before the pass goes through.
Meanwhile all of the articles still have a "discuss this nomination" template, presumably we need a "passed" template too?
For some reason the template is adding all of the nominations to Category:Unassessed Version 0.5 articles, and the bot is reading them as such (see the V0.5 bot log for yesterday). We should fix this, I'm sorry I don't know how!
Great job guys, and my sincere thanks to you Nifboy for suggesting this and seeing it through, it looks like it will be a real asset to the 0.5/1.0 project. Thanks, Walkerma 06:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, I wasn't expecting it to be closed a day after the most recent comment; I would have preferred waiting at least a few more days for comments like the above. Regarding passed articles, I would simply tag them with the ordinary {{V0.5}} tag. Nifboy 09:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I thought that people wouldn't keep commenting on the nomination, and that the articles were already added to the listing, so I just thought about plopping {{polltop}} and {{pollbottom}} on it. Tito xd^(?!?) 04:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for the template, I fixed that yesterday too...^[1] Tito xd^(?!?) 04:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and added the two football articles to the individual noms list. If there aren't any objections, I'll start adding links to other 0.5 pages now? Nifboy 20:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

What if one member of me set of nominations is already in Version 0.5? Should I nominate it or just show that it is in V0.5? NCurse_work 06:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What if this member is already a nominee? Should I remove it from the nomination list? NCurse_work 06:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For already passed articles, simply list them as such in the nomination; no need to tag them as nominees again. Current nominees I would leave on the nomination list; it would be the same as if it were nominated for two different sets. The individual nomination I would treat as a "set of one"; if it passes in one nomination, it passes, period. Nifboy 08:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And what about the templates (nom and set nom) on the article's discussion page? NCurse_work 08:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Passed pages should not be "passed" and "nom" at the same time. Twice-nominated pages should be twice-tagged. Nifboy 15:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, done, thanks. :) NCurse_work 16:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Error in template

I noticed that an error in the template {{0.5 set nom}} was causing the bot to consider each set nominee to be already passed. This has inflated our statistics temporarily. I think I have fixed the problem, but that means our numbers may be down temporarily. If anyone who really understands templates properly drops by, maybe they can check over the latest version of this template. Thanks, Walkerma 03:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rivers

Thinking about geographical info, I wonder if we should have (say) the world's 40 longest rivers (i.e. 2500 km and over). This would include things like the Amazon River (#2), Yangtze River (#3), Mississippi River (#4, with Missouri), the Danube (#29) and Ganges River (#39). I'm only hesitating because several of the articles are at the stub/start level, including some major rivers like the Congo River (#9). Is this worth putting together? Walkerma 06:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How does the top 10 look? Maybe that would be better. Maurreen 08:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]