Wikipedia talk:Version 0.5 Nominations/Archive 2

message: What we want at last?:
* to put just nearly perfect articles into V0.5?
* or to put every important articles? 
To be more understandable: for example, Saturn article is not as good as Mercury. But how could we publish any planet without the others? Or is there any template saying: it's in V0.5 but you should improve it's quality? NCurse work 10:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an important question, as we have to balance comprehensiveness against quality, and each case will have to be judged on its own merit.  You should try to use as a guideline the WP:V0.5 criteria.  You'll see that you made the right call on the planets - to quote from the criteria page, "If a certain lower-quality article is needed to complete a "set" (e.g. of the Solar system planets), then it may be included." Walkerma 04:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Part of using the bot is that it provides us with a diff we can use to check the degree of improvement (or degradation) of an article after it was passed. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 04:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I meant to say before - regarding a way to request improvement of the article, if you assess it as B-Class and include "class=B" in the template, that will tend to encourage folks to work on it.  If there are specific flaws, you should probably mention those on the article talk page. Walkerma 04:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maybe important question 

message: What proportion of FAs are anticipated to qualify as far as importance are concerned? If it's more than 75% or so, would it be good to consider every FA as nominated, and accept or reject every one of them for the sake of completeness? Andjam 15:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would guess less than a third, actually.  A lot of our FAs are on topics of fairly narrow interest. Kirill Lokshin 15:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: But we will need about 10,000 articles. In my opinion we should build on FA articles. Then improve topics on them. NCurse work 18:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 10,000?  I was under the impression that those were the 1.0 numbers, and that the 0.5 release was to be much smaller (on the order of 2000 articles). Kirill Lokshin 18:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, I see now. :) Ok, we have about 1000 featured. Then you are rigth. Now concetrate on major topics. NCurse work 19:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proportion of FAs that'll qualify 

message: Can we be able to merge articles such as the excellent Saffron series which are all FAs and History of Miami, Florida a FA to Miami, Florida. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 02:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, do you actually mean merging FAs in the live Wikipedia?  Somehow I don't think that's going to go over very well with the people writing them. Kirill Lokshin 02:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see us being able to merge articles at all.  There may be exceptional circumstances, where a WikiProject does a merge for us to bring lots of articles (typically stubs) together, in order to get the material included.  Walkerma 02:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe for the 1.0, note I'm mostly the writer of the History of Miami article and I don't mind Jaranda wat's sup 02:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep in mind the whole "appropriate length" thing from WP:WIAFA, though; merging two FAs may produce something that's no longer of sufficient quality simply by virtue of being too long (and hence unreadable). Kirill Lokshin 02:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging articles 

message: I passed electron a while back, although it was B-class, because I viewed it as a very important subject.  Now there's a very reasonable request to include the articles on proton and neutron to complete the set.  The proton and neutron articles also look B-class to me, and are of roughly equal importance as the other two particles of which the entire universe is made.  So I think that all three articlese should either be in or out, but I'm not sure which.  Any opinions? -- SCZenz 13:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pass them all; it's not like we're running out of space ;-) Kirill Lokshin 14:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These are good examples of articles that are of very high importance but low quality.  We will probably have to allow in quite a few B-Class in such high importance cases.  I think a lot more could be added to an article like proton, but at the same time it's a basic building block of matter.  I'd say "pass", but hopefully the B-Class tag on it will spur the physics folks to work on the basics!  But if we find "Start" class articles that are really important but not being used to complete a set (Saturn was needed for the set of planets), I would fail the article on quality and post a request for improving the article (with suggestions if poss.). Thanks, Walkerma 15:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proton, neutron, and electron 

message: There's a discussion about this on wikipedia-l ... take a look. +sj + 22:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia list discussion 

message: Here are a few articles I think of as having borderline importance:
*Gulf Oil 
*Transhumanism 
*Barbara McClintock
*Tooth development
All of these have been nominated for at least a week. None have an entry in my one-volume encyclopedia, which has 17,000 entries. I haven't looked in my larger set. 
Does anyone want to discuss or defend their possible inclusion? Maurreen 14:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think all of them are candidates for later versions, and should go in "Held."  Transhumanism is a popular thing among certain groups of young people, it is definitely noteworthy but perhaps not enough for 0.5.  McClintock is a Nobel Laureate and is definitely noteworthy.  Tooth development may not be in the one-vol encyclopedia under that heading, but the way Wikipedia works, it is in effect a subsection of our coverage of dentistry.  Not appropriate for 0.5, but I could see us having perhaps 5 dentistry articles in a later release, and as a Featured Article, this would be a strong candidate at that time.  So let's put them all on hold.  Walkerma 02:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Borderline importance

message: I've made *. If there are no objections, this could be used to encourage nominations. It could be placed on articles of high importance en mass, encouraging an editor active with the topic to make the nomination. Maurreen 16:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Err, if you're going to be editing all of those talk pages anyways, why not just nominate the articles and cut out the extra step?  It's not like it makes any difference who does the nominating at this point. Kirill Lokshin 16:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. The template allows efficient publicity. I could put it on many articles that I'm confident of the importance but haven't read for quality. Someone following the article could be spurred to either nominate it or improve it. I'm trying it out of a few continent articles. Also, I added a category. Maurreen 17:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Good luck with your surgery. Maurreen 17:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So at last, should we use this new template or not? :) NCurse work 17:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, ok. :) Then now I flood science-related articles with this template... :) NCurse work 18:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Wouterstomp. This is too invasive and time-consuming, and using talk-page templates to advertise a project (rather than to directly benefit the encyclopedia) is inappropriate. A simple list would be much less invasive, and much easier to keep updated. In fact, that's exactly the method the WP:VA project uses. -Silence 00:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I just created this User:Jaranda/Articles eligible for Wikipedia:Version 0.5 basiclly a copy-paste of WP:VA, maybe we can fix it up and place in to wikipedia namespace. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 01:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, if we're going to make it exactly like WP:VA (at least to start with), you could always use WP:VA itself. :P Nobody's really using that project for anything major anyway, other than for the CD Version endeavors. Or, depending on how long you want the list to be, you could start with Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded and then simply start trimming off all the articles that don't meet the 0.5 cut (and adding ones that do). The Expanded list is probably closer to what you're really looking for, if articles like chromosome (which probably wouldn't fit on the shortened WP:VA list, though genetics itself might) are a good example of what would make the cut. If somebody clarified what types of articles would (and wouldn't) be appropriate for a list of "eligible for CD nomination" articles, I'd gladly help to work on such a list. -Silence 01:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Since we don't really need to know which articles have cleanup tags on them for the purposes of V0.5, why not use bold to indicate articles that are already in 0.5, rather than removing them from the list altogether? That way someone won't see an obvious omission in the list (like biology) and add it, not realizing that it's just an entry that's already been accepted into 0.5. (Or, if bolding isn't a good idea, we could always use a CD icon, similar to the small image we're using for GA and FA. But I think bolding would be a lot easier and quicker, while still making the distinction between accepted and non-accepted "eligible (i.e. important) articles" very clear.) -Silence 01:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Oi. You deleted your version while I was in the middle of a major edit to it. I'll paste the text to Wikipedia:Articles eligible for Version 0.5. -Silence 02:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Eligible for nomination template

message: Has this been put on the Village Pump, etc.? Maurreen 12:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure that being so aggressive on the publicity front is a good idea?  Recall what happened to WP:GA when they went overboard in that regard.  Kirill Lokshin 12:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What happened to GA? Maurreen 13:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of people have started opposing their every attempt to legitimize the process on principle, believing them to be spammers and such. Kirill Lokshin 14:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, I did put a "press release" out when the nominations opened, that seemed the appropriate time.  It went on the community notice board, and also made it into that week's Signpost.  I think it helped getting the word out.  At the same time, Kirill has a good point, if you try to get too much publicity!  I'd like to do a major splash when we're getting to the last couple of weeks or so of nominations. Walkerma 02:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Publicity

message: Why does Jareena's nomination of the article feeling falsely claim that (1) the article is on the WP:VA listing (it isn't, and never has been, though emotion is), and (2) the article is B-Class (when it's really Stub-Class, or at best somewhere between a really crummy Start-Class and a dab page)? Moreover, there is ongoing discussion to merge feeling into the emotion article. Was the wrong page nominated here? -Silence 21:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Feeling]]

message: The nomination categories don't match up with the categories in Wikipedia:Version 0.5. Is there a grand reason for this? Andjam 12:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, how about we move the links to the categories higher, so we don't need to scroll down? Maurreen 14:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. NCurse work 16:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They used to match, but someone tried out a new format at V0.5 as an experiment.  The category system used here at Nominations is the Wikipedia 1.0 standard, one we voted on after lengthy discussion.  I recently proposed we switch back so they match again, are people here OK with that?  See Wikipedia_talk:Version_0.5#Unbalanced_sections for more details. Walkerma 16:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. Maurreen 16:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination categories 

message: please explain why pop singer mariah carey deemed significant, yet hong kong action cinema isn't. strange that a single generic pop tart is somehow more important to the world than a century of cinema from the world's third biggest film industry. cheers. Zzzzz 10:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Zzzzz! I agree with you now. Maybe the reviewer thought that Hong Kong action cinema is a too narrow topic to get into the first 200-300 articles. As Walkerma wrote on held nomination page: "We may be able to include Hollywood and Bollywood if we're lucky, but this one will have to wait till a later release". Jaranda passed Mariah Carey for Version 0.5. It is hard to always see and realize the difference between the importance of the topics. Anyway these articles will be reviewed again soon. NCurse work 10:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that we're suffering from the same problem that has plagued WP:GA: having things done by a single reviewer is always going to result in subtly different outcomes depending on which reviewer happens to check the article.  I don't think it's too much of an issue for a test release, though; given the timeframe we're working with, it's likely to have a fairly random selection of articles no matter what we do. Kirill Lokshin 16:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why I can't understand why we didn't started to use User:Chcknwnm/Sandbox... I loved that system. NCurse work 16:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably because assigning articles to reviewers that they really couldn't know—or care—less about tends not to be the best way of maintaining their interest in being reviewers.  What we need is a system that both (a) allows reviewers to self-select which articles/topics/categories they'll work with, but also (b) ensures multiple reviewers for each article.  I don't think anyone has come up with anything other than a WP:FAC-like model, which might not really work given the small number of people we have at the moment. Kirill Lokshin 16:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "the small number of people we have at the moment" - I can't see why it is a problem. Our number is growing, and I think FAC system could work. But not in V0.5. NCurse work 16:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it would be absolutely wonderful to have a system where different users can comment and, informally (to help determine consensus), "vote" on each entry's quality and/or significance while it's nominated. The GA system for approval is a weak, inefficient one; I have no real interest in going through the list in its current state and making removals or additions based on my personal opinion and evaluation alone, but I'd have a great deal of interest in a system where I could simply voice what I think about each article's qualifications, and listen to others' evaluations and responses, before an agreement is reached. The more users can voice their opinion, the more successful and popular the project, and the more accurate and consistent the inclusion standards, will become; when only a single one decides for each nominee, without input from users with varied perspectives, there will be a much higher error rate than if we had even 3 or 4 users going over the list to find a common ground. This would also help isolate and make explicit some of the implicit disagreements over notability and quality standards in the background of this project, allowing us to directly address them. -Silence 16:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I personally think Carey is a definite to include, based on the intro on her page:
*"best-selling female artist of all time"
*"the most U.S. number-one singles for a female artist"
Otherwise I can agree with all of the above points. The system isn't perfect, and our list will be a long way from comprehensive.  Right now our bias (as I see it) is in the natural bias within Wikipedia - we have no articles (as far as I know) on any major transnational corporation, for example.  Remember this is not a simple one-dimensional judgement - it's a balance of quality, importance and breadth of article.  Should we have one article on Popular Music of the UK and ditch narrower articles like The Beatles?  How about East Asian Cinema, or Cinema of Hong Kong, instead of Hong Kong action cinema?  Or just include Bruce Lee and Jackie Chan?  The reality is (thankfully) - for V0.5, it doesn't matter too much, as long as we don't have anything too silly or bad.  The main issue is to get a total of 1000+ article reviewed & approved in the next 8-9 weeks or so.  
Going forward to version 1.0 (for which both Koufax and HK action cinema will likely qualify), the issues become more significant, and Silence has explained the advantages of more thorough reviews very nicely.  If you look at Version 1.0 nominations (still closed) you'll see that Maurreen has already set it up along those lines, rather like FAC.  
I'd like to see several things set up, particularly #2:
# A disputes page, to handle things like this
# A page where reviewers can leave comments on articles, either directly or via transclusion.  The bot can now read reviewers comments from any page of the type Talk:Article/Comments, if the template is set up to read them.  These comments could also be transcluded into a review page, a held nominations page, etc.  
# I agree that Chuck's idea was nice except for the arbitrary assignment aspect.  I think that system could work well if restructured, maybe in conjunction with #2. 
However, I simply don't have time to set up such pages and moderate them.  If someone is really interested in doing any of them, please go ahead!  Meanwhile, we still have another 800 articles or so to review....! Walkerma 03:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm ambivalent about Mariah Carey. But I agree with Walkerma that we should keep the process streamlined for now. Some disagreements are likely inevitable. Maurreen 06:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  systematic bias 

message: I added links to the nomination categories at the top of the page and put the categories in alphabetical order. Maurreen 15:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page format

message: I'm still learning how this 0.5 process works, so please excuse my naïvété. Why was Michigan State University deemed "outside the scope" of WP 1.0, when the University of Michigan made the list? Both MSU ans UM are large Big Ten Conference universities in the State of Michigan. Both have around 40,000 students (more or less), and both are members of the Association of American Universities. In terms of quality, both universities areFA's that have been featured on the main page. But the thing I'd really like to know is why UM is the only university in the entire world nominated so far.
By the way, as one of the primary editors of the MSU article, I will freely admit my own POV. If the 0.5 nominators deem Michigan State unworthy, that is fine, but I would like to know exactly what universities are within the scope of Wikipedia 1.0. — Lovelac7 10:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the thread immediately above this one, ie FLAWED PROCESS.  Join the club. BTW, you make an excellent point.Rlevse 10:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As you can see from the previous thread, we are considering a major revision of our policy.  It's one of the flaws of our "crude but fast" system we needed to get us started.  This is exactly the wort of reason why we needed this test version!  I have no doubt we will be revisiting this article (+ perhaps the UM one too) and many others soon.  Thanks, and please keep nominating education articles, Walkerma 14:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I thought I'd get complaints for including Cambridge but not Oxford on the WPCD. PS are we still aiming for 5000 articles? :) --BozMo talk 15:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're aiming for 2,000, would like to see 10,000, and—if we keep going like this—are likely to wind up with 500. Kirill Lokshin 15:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: In the prior thread (FLAWED PROCESS) Walkerma says 2000 and there are only 400 right now.  At that rate, the project will nowhere near meet its deadline. Rlevse 15:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Michigan State University

message: It looks like we aren't going to meet the original goal of having 2,000 articles by August. Any thoughts on adjusting that? We could set a later date, a lower number, or decide not to have a specific goal for either. Maurreen 15:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or we could just stop failing so many articles... Kirill Lokshin 15:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. Include U. Mich. but not Mich State when both are FAs.  Include an obscure writer's B-class article that virtually no one heard of and fail an FA on...whatever that millions of people have heard of.  Sounds like a no-brainer to me...See my proposal on Walkerma's talk page. Rlevse 15:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Goal date and quantity

message: Here's what I think would work for your V0.5 project and meet most concerns people brought up:
#Articles already selected: water under the bridge, leave them there
#Article must be nominated-even if they are "automatically included", it is not the job of reviewers to go looking for articles
#Stub and Start articles are not eligible under any circumstances, if the editor wants them included, he/she must beef them up
#B-class are only eligible if they are on a Core Topic and in such a case are automatically included
#FA, A-class, GA articles are automatically included if they have been rated as TOP or HIGH by a WikiProject OR are on a Core Topic
#remaining FA, A-class, GA articles must be voted on by at least 3 reviewers and at least 2 must vote for inclusion and rated 1-5 by each reviewer, 5 being very important (like George Washington) and 1 being very minor (like Spoo). A score of 2.1 must be attained for inclusion.  Nominations in this cat should be left on the nom page for at least 10 days
#nominators should note if they feel an article is in an "auto included" category
Rlevse 20:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: V0.5 proposal

message: There are probably a number of things that we won't get complete agreement on: about both individual articles and the larger project. I am trying to work toward what is least objectionable to the most people.
Here is another simple option: Make a section of the nominations page for items of debatable importance. I don't expect nominators to put anything in there, but reviewers would. That could lead to discussion of the individual articles, without slowing the process for other articles.
Does anyone think that doing this would be worse than our current process?
If there is some other idea that would engender more agreement, this would not preclude that. But we could at least do this until we get more agreement on anything else. Maurreen 16:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really like this idea.  It echoes back somewhat to Chuck's two reviewers idea.  For many nominations, importance is not an issue and it boils down merely to quality (something easier to handle) - for those the existing one-reviewer system is fine.  For anything where importance is an issue, we need at least two people to discuss things. Walkerma 20:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Section for items of debatable importance

message: Some of these issues have been talked about in general before. Any project like this is likely to engender some disagreement on various issues, and trade-offs are required one way or another.
Version 0.5 was intended as a middle ground between being quick and being better (both the quality of the individual entries and topic selection.
For a quicker way, see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Test Version. It's very streamlined. Nominators simply tag the articles. In late summer or early fall, User:BozMo and his team will do some cleanup.
The longer process is at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Nominations. I was coordinating that, but suspended my activity there because I have recently been more busy outside WP and so as not to dilute the overall effort here.
The process at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Nominations is still simple, but it is longer. Each nomination would be handled similarly as at WP:FAC. The community could address each item on grounds of both quality and importance. Maurreen 16:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All smoke.  This is merely dodging the issue at hand--unfairness and inconsistencies in the 0.5 process.Rlevse 16:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not dodging the issues. Part of my point is that we don't need to reinvent the wheel. Are you saying that neither of the two options or no option other than yours would address your concerns? I have offered a number of choices, and so have others. Maurreen 16:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Might I point out that talking about the "need to reinvent the wheel" is somewhat silly, in this case.  One of the listed options (1.0) hasn't gotten past the initial planning stages, and the other one (the Test Version) seems so unstructured as to make it useless for any longer-term work (which is not to say that it doesn't have its uses, but merely that if things could be kept so simple, we wouldn't need the entire 1.0 process to begin with). Kirill Lokshin 17:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You, 'trying to find the widest agreement', surely you jest again. You're proposals have been the narrowest of standards of us all and you're the one who failed a TOP FA of a project.  And as Kirill said, you actually propose a standard (1.0) that is on hold and meanwhile V0.5 has 6 weeks to get 1600 out of 2000 articles.Rlevse 17:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some background

message: We already have Wikipedia:Articles eligible for Version 0.5. Those items should not be rejected based on importance. Maurreen 17:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Has multiple highly obscure people and things.Rlevse 17:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe that list is also called Wikipedia:Vital articles in other circles, so it is by no means composed of obscure articles. Titoxd(?!?) 00:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It may have started from VA, but has gone off the road, I'd hardly call Vitruvius a household name even among college educated people. I could list more, but it'd be pointless. Rlevse 01:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about Archduke Franz Ferdinand? ;-) Kirill Lokshin 01:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: no WP:VA is not the same as this one, which seems to be maureen's personal preferences with no objective criteria - for random example see "actors and directors" section: Tom Hanks is a must have! yet Akira Kurosawa, Bruce Lee, Satyajit Ray, Amitabh Bachan and Fritz Lang arent mentioned - because maureen's never heard of them so they must pale in comparison to Tom Hanks, right? and i wont be nominating them as i have no confidence in the abilities of those who are doing the importance assessments to know anything about the subject matter, they would likely be rejected in favour of Brad Pit and Angelina Jolie. agree with rlevse, at the moment the project is far too focused around the individual opinions of maureen instead of utilizing subject experts to judge importance. Zzzzz 00:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, the list was based off WP:VA and then expanded. Consider that before making accusations that a particular editor is biased or not. That Maureen has been the only one editing it lately is a different thing, but does not compromise the integrity of the list, nor means that any of the other articles you mentioned up above would not be accepted. If you won't nominate them, no one will look for them, so they'll stay out. Titoxd(?!?) 00:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: as you'll see in the "systematic bias" section above i tested the process first before concluding that the process is biased - how else to explain Hong Kong action cinema's exclusion in favour of Mariah Carey? after reading the discussion, i saw that nobody was able to give a straight answer about why she is more important than a century's worth of cinema output, and so finally came to the conclusion that the process is a mess without objective criteria for importance. Zzzzz 00:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I added them along with 2 others. I heard of Lee before and I read the lead of the other four, and they are must haves. Anyways Hanks is considered as one of the best male actor alive today, and is a must have. Hong Kong may get added later, see above. Jaranda wat's sup 01:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nominate them so they'll be included? You're joking.  The last two days are about how things have excluded even though they're FAs, such as Mich. State out and  U.Mich is in even though both are FAs on Big Ten schools.  You can't explain that because there is no logic there.  Zzzzz is right, if one person thinks it's unimportant it's out, with no recourse.  At least at GA noms, they put things on hold to give the editor a chance to fix things.  I just looked at one page of 0.5 noms history, Maurreen passed one out of six articles, no wonder progress towards 2000 articles is so slow and people don't want to submit things. 01:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The list looks like a guide to me, and there is nothing in the lead paragraph that suggests it's intended to be definitive - "This is a list of some of the articles that are eligible for nomination".  That's a fairly innocuous statement.   It looks like an attempt to isolate a group of diverse articles into one place to make it easier to look at them, and nothing more.  Naturally the list is going to be biased if Maurreen is making most of the contributions, but why is Maurreen being blamed for that?  Where is everyone else? There are numerous glaring omissions from the list so why can't other editors add to it, or discuss those particular articles that they believe may not qualify?  Why is Wikipedia talk:Articles eligible for Version 0.5 virtually empty if there is so much disagreement with what is on the list?  WP:VA is also missing some articles that should be there in my opinion - neither of the lists are perfect.  The examples you've given are important figures who should be considered, but obviously hadn't been thought of until now, and as Tito said above, if they don't get nominated they probably won't get looked at.  Who then will be responsible for their omission?  If you think they should be on the list, put them on the list.  Rossrs 01:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: If that's the way it works, then what's the diff in that page and 0.5 noms page? Why have both?Rlevse 01:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I left Michigan State university out on importance, there are more notable ones out there like Harvard, Yale, Cambridge. We already got one article on a Michigan University on there. Obviously we can't add every university, only a few will pass though, let them be more well-known ones. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 01:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Therein lies the problem: MSU and U of M are rivals, so that isn't actually particularily neutral. Also, then you have to count Ohio State, etc... Titoxd(?!?) 02:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jaranda, Arguing that you've already promoted one Big Ten university in Michigan is like saying that, since you've already promoted one Republican U.S. President named George Bush, you don't need to add another. Even if two articles are about two similar people, places, or things with similar names, you still have to treat them as independent articles. — Lovelac7 02:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: So the one from Mich that's nom first gets in and others don't?  Then you have to determine where to draw the line. Who determines whether Harvard is more important than Stanford?  There's inherent bias there.  And considering you have 6 six weeks to find 1600 of 2000 articles, the reigns are too tight. The inherent unfairness and personal bias in the current system is killing the project. Rlevse 02:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks like a AOLer just nominated Spoo sigh, also Stanford is very notable and should get in, still this is only a test release Jaranda wat's sup 02:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm sorely tempted to pass it ;-) Kirill Lokshin 02:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List of eligible articles

message: I would like to request that all reviewers hold off for the time being on the "fail on importance" option.  We can re-activate this system once we have new policies in place.  Being on the road this weekend, I can't take the time to set this up.  Next week I hope we can:
* Revisit the "held" list, with the expectation that most FAs can be included.
* Set up a new system that works well without upsetting people.
In the meantime, please keep reviewing things you consider important enough, and please try to be civil.  We're all on the same side here, and we all care a lot about Wikipedia.  Let's at least try to get 1000 for a test CD.  Thanks! Walkerma 20:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moratorium on "fail for importance" 

message: Wikipedia:Version 0.5 Set Nominations has been created and I would like some feedback before making it an official complement to the 0.5 process. Nifboy 06:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the experiment has shown the value of the process.  Can you perhaps tweak the process to make sure that all loose ends are tied before approval goes through, and then I think we can make it official.  What do others think? Thanks for setting it up, Walkerma 05:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought it was official already? Titoxd(?!?) 05:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope it will be very soon, but I don't think it is official until people here have a chance to agree that it is, especially the folks who participated. Can I take your comment to mean a Yes?Walkerma 05:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure. Titoxd(?!?) 05:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed group-nomination page 

message: I posted a message in the village pump (assistance section) asking for more nominations and reviewers. Do we have enough people and is the village pump a good place to ask for them?Eyu100 00:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We definitely need more of both active reviewers and nominations. Now we have the set nominations page (and soon the FA Review page too) we can cover a lot of ground, but we need people to be active.  Thanks for taking the initiative! Walkerma 03:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Village Pump 

message: I started a page for Wikipedia:Version 0.5 Core topics review. Should we add all countries on the page? They were left off the original list for the sake of brevity. I would also suggest including all vital articles. Maurreen 07:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since countries form a closed set of articles, I was thinking we would use the set nominations page page.  Indeed, I have already nominated the whole of Europe]] - please add comments, as I've had very little general feedback!  If people prefer to do them with Core Topics I'd be OK with that too.  For VAs, I think the list is quite long and separate from Core Topics, and so it may be easier to use a separate page - but if someone is willing to combine them somehow I wouldn't oppose it.  What we DO need to add to this review page IMHO is the supplementary core topics list. Thanks a lot for setting up the page, Maurreen, things have been pretty busy for me this week. Walkerma 19:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made Wikipedia:Version 0.5 Country Review. Maurreen 07:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Core topics review

message: I have created a page for GA reviews, the equivalent of FA reviews. The only change is that two reviewers instead of three are required to fail an article on importance. Is this a good idea? That page is still being set up.
:Good idea. Let's start to work there. :) NCurse work 20:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good! Walkerma 22:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA review