Wikipedia talk:Release Version Nominations

message: I removed it from the list, but than read that only approved people should do so. As such I will undo my edit for now. The article fails on grounds of neutrality. Its a heavily biased article. Naacats 21:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smoking needs to be denominated 

message: That puts the burden on me to check this page every day until you have finished, doesn't it? I have nominated Taiwanese aborigines.--Ling.Nut 18:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, we'll consider that nominated!  I hope we can re-open this page in a week or two.  Thanks, Walkerma 02:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry I just noticed the bit about self-nomination. Please note this as a self-nomination. Thanks. --Ling.Nut 00:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  don't nominate until discussion is finished...? 

message: I addressed this to user BozMo initially, thinking he was in charge of this project? or something related? 
I would like a simple description of the project somewhere, as I have read through a number of pages (various talk pages, 1.0 pages, 0.5 pages), and cannot easily distinguish between Wikipedia 0.5 and 1.0, or reach a clear understanding of where each project is at, and how and wether users can contribute. It would be ideal if this outline had a more descriptive name such as 'wikipedia offline (project)' or 'static wikipedia (version).
-thanks, dialectric User:Dialectric
:Yes, I agree with you!  The problem is that for our first "official" release (i.e., not BozMo's charity release), called version 0.5, we have been very busy, and pages have been created as needed.  Once version 0.5 is released I plan to step back and create some kind of site map.  The template (on the right) is the closest thing to it, and it's very helpful, but even that is quite out of date and it doesn't include explanations.  The real problem is that there are only a handful of active editors trying to do a lot of work.  As for the rename, we've discussed that very issue, and that's why this page is called "release version" nominations - but on the other languages the pages are all called version 1.0 for some reason, even the German project that has released several CD and DVD versions already.  If you are interested in helping us, and you let us know where your interests lie, we can suggest some suitable tasks, and that would free someone up to work on this! Thanks, Walkerma 15:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about wikipedia offline project(s) 

message: Battle of Tours Eyu100(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 04:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-nomination 

message: Looking at the long list of these on the main nominations page, I wonder if these might better be handled as one big group, i.e., as our first [[Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations/Set Nominations
set nomination]]?  I notice that the talk pages haven't been tagged yet, so there's no wasted effort there.  Set nominations worked well on Version 0.5 for a large group of closely related articles like this - the nominator tags all the talk pages and gives a brief assessment (such as "poor B, rather listy" or "Good B, just a few more refs to be A").  You can make a case for importance and completeness to the linguistically ignorant like myself: "Ulvonian is the parent alphabet for all the peoples of East Africa" or "There are only 17 basic families of alphabet commonly in use, and all of these have been included, hence the need to include Toctic which is only Start-class".  Once several reviewers reach consensus - this may take a while - all get added in one go.  What do others -esp. Lincher - think of this? Walkerma 05:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This would normally go with the WVWP for this list was created off of the B+ articles that came from the Writing system index page from Mathbot's assessment stuff. I concur with you and will thus create a seperate Set Nomination page. Lincher 12:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alphabet/writing system nominations

message: Briefly, we need to count how many articles we have. It wouldn't be very hard to do it, so can somebody ask Oleg? I don't know how Mathbot works, so I probably can't ask. Eyu100(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 06:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want, I'll set up the Version 0.7 project as one of the Mathbot projects, just like 0.5 is.  That way we can get nightly updates of the statistics, the log and the listing.  Just let me know here. Walkerma 06:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I want this version to be updated by Mathbot. Eyu100(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 18:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of Mathbot 

message: Walkerma, could you set up the release version for Mathbot? I don't know how to do that. I already posted once, but apparently you didn't notice. Eyu100(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 17:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The bot is now down and, for that matter, the adjustments made by Walkerma in order for the bot to pick up our project is now on hold till the bot works again. Lincher 18:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mathbot 

message: What is the difference between Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations/Vital articles and Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations/Core topics review?  Should the former be redirected to the latter?  If not, could someone update the intros to clarify? -- Beland 04:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One was created by the 1.0 team and the second one was copied from that and they changed in parallel. We are now working on the Core Topic one as to add relevant articles to the release version page. As for the Vital articles, they will be easily cross-checked later if it is an actual copy of the former list. If you are willing to help, please do so and feel free to ask questions if you aren't sure how to do it. Lincher 05:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate pages? 

message: Please let me know if this discussion should go somewhere else, but 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)
replies: text: I have added your comment here; if you're knowledgable in this area, then please feel free to review and add further comments. Thanks! Walkerma 04:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, I'd suspect that very few (if any) of the "Start" class will be included - the criteria suggest that Starts are only used to complete a set that is otherwise nearly all B or better.  Walkerma 04:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  World music nominations 

message: trying to fill some cracks in the nom list, i've been adding things like Eggs (food), Census, Bed, Roof, etc. in a quality sense, these articles need improvement. in an importance sense, these articles should be nominated. do these meet the release citeria of Start-Class articles, only if they are part of a set or are essential or Articles needed for completeness? i thought they did, but i'd like to make sure before i feel like i could be spamming the nom list. JoeSmack Talk 16:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Joe - good selection!  As you say, they are all fairly important topics, and everyday things like this may not get covered in projects.  Some of them certainly look to be usable.  I have poor & sporadic internet at the moment (away for Christmas) but I'll take a look properly when I return.  Thanks, Walkerma 03:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Hope you're back) Should they be added? Should I start making lists of noms like these? This one was about 15 min of hunting around. JoeSmack Talk 05:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: not poor but completely wrong articles - when reading about the music of the czech republic, i gradually started to feel irritated as i was coming to a conclusion that the author knows nothing on the topic. i hope there are not many nominees like this.. Muflon 83 10:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  important subjects, poor articles 

message: This page appears to badly need to be updated.  It has all sorts of strikethroughs on it, and doesn't address :WP:V0.7. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the person who was originally going to take charge here has gone on wikibreak, and I have been too busy with Version 0.5 up until now to take over.  If nothing happens in the next day or so, I will get things going myself (V0.5 now has finished beta testing).  I plan to get a lot of people actively reviewing, if I can.  Would you be able to help us out? Thanks, Walkerma 18:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've made a start by writing a new FAQ page to guide our new reviewers.  I will sharpen up the selection criteria, clean up this page, then we should be able to be in business!  Walkerma 06:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats a good little FAQ; you might want to post it up on the Notices section of the community portal. JoeSmack Talk 14:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *OK thanks.  That is helpful.  An article I started (Baby Gender Mentor) just made it through the FA process.  I will be interested in watching whehter it gets selected.  It is certainly not as important as DNA but it does touch on some important social issues. Johntex\talk 22:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Update?

message: Hey, is there a time line on this project? It's looking pretty inactive...? --Ling.Nut 03:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the work was pretty much put on hold while WP:V0.5 was being finalized, and while MartinBotII was ready. The first one is done, and the second one is coming far along, so there'll be some activity here soon. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Titoxd. Long time since I've run into you. :-) Cheers! --Ling.Nut 03:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Heh. Same here. Hopefully V0.5's release this week will bring more eyes here, which are always "more better". Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  noms since Jan; project defunct? 

message: Um... why are the "fail" instructions struck out? I don't know if it is because they were outdated, or if there is something I'm missing... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 17:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are quite a few things that were hastily copied over from Version 0.5 but which need reworking.  I'm not totally sure what was meant by the strikeouts, but I'm guessing these are things that needed fixing - thanks for doing that.  There are still some sub-pages that need this cleaning up.  Regarding importance, good point, I think I'll have to put things in writing.  I've been holding off, wondering whether MartinBotII is going to help us or not.  Based on what I've heard today, I think we WILL have a bot helping us.  That means we may get 10,000-50,000 articles, which means we CAN be a bit more relaxed about importance.  Hence my comments on the Dinosaur set nomination.  Walkerma 03:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Speaking of which, there's no FA review page, so the instruction to "not nominate FAs here" is a bit troubling. What are we doing with FAs? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I chose not to do an FA review page, because these will definitely on the list to be checked by MartinBotII.  That way we can focus our energies on other things like Set Nominations, where the bot is less useful. But if the bot fails for some reason, then we need to set one up. The Toolserver should stabilise this month, so hopefully we can test the bot soon. Walkerma 01:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Struck out instructions 

message: Some obvious military aircraft/vehicles:
* Messerschmitt Bf 109
* P-38 Lightning
* C-130
* F-15
* H-60
* M1 Abrams
* Humvee
Some key weapons:
* Springfield M1903
* M1 Garand
* M1911 Colt pistol
* M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle
* Thompson submachine gun
* Walther PPK
* V-2 rocket
* Fat man and Little boy
* AR-15
* M79 grenade launcher
* RPG-7
* M72 LAW
* Uzi submachine gun
* Heckler & Koch MP5
Key cartridges:
* .38 Special
* .357 Magnum
* .380 ACP
* .40 Smith & Wesson
* .45 ACP
* 9 mm Luger
* .22 Long Rifle
* 5.56 mm NATO
* .30-06 Springfield
* .308 Winchester
* .300 Winchester Magnum
* .338 Lapua Magnum
* .50 BMG
General:
* Firearm
* Handgun
* Rifle
* Machine gun
* Assault rifle
* Submarine
Add a good portion of those and it would certainly help flesh out that Weapons and military equipment section. --Crimson30 18:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please nominate them on the project page, not on the talk page. This will get archived, and the reviewers will not see them... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Roger that.  Done deal.  Crimson30 19:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weapons and military equipment additions I'd like to see 

message: How come there's no theatre&film section? Miskin 22:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is under Lang and Lit. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: cinema

message: We now have quite a few set nominations, but very little feedback from the review team on these.  Because of the layout of the page (transclusion), we don't get a watchlist reminder like we do for the main page, so you have to actually remember to check it.  I want to make an appeal for our reviewers: Please take a look at any of these that take your fancy, and give your thoughts.  I will probably want to promote soon a selection from the woodworking selection, dinosaurs and perhaps the writing systems, as these have all been around with comments for over a month.  Note that these set noms can provide a large addition to our article numbers quickly, and provide a nice set where people can find blue links connecting to related articles - giving us a little extra depth in certain areas.  Please take a few minutes to help! Walkerma 03:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Set nomination reviews 

message: Just a note on Template:WP1.0|v0.7=nom. The directions say that if you are nomating an article, you are to place this template on the article's talk page. However, the template reads as if the article had already been reviewed. Don't know if this is a mistake or intentional. Just a heads up. MrPrada 02:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point!  There are one or two other things like this that need fixing.  I'll raise these with the person who wrote the template for us.  These "smart" templates can be hard to write.  Thanks for pointing this out! Walkerma 05:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:WP1.0 

message: has serious, serious problems. I believe the same could be said of many (if not most) of the articles about music in any one of the 50 states. I propose removing all of them, unless they happen to have reached GA or FA status. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 05:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that we probably don't need separate music articles for every US State at this point, at least until the general standard improves.  There are a few cities that deserve at least consideration because of a seminal influence on music worldwide - New Orleans, Nashville, Seattle, London (UK), Manchester (UK), places like that.  With decent articles, Athens, GA and Philly are at least significant enough to be included (I've heard of the music scenes of both and their importance to pop music from documentaries on TV/radio, etc) - we need to get 30,000 articles total, which means that a GA, A or FA has to be pretty obscure (e.g., Foo, obscure Seinfeld episodes) to get rejected on importance.  I'll leave further comments on the set noms page. Walkerma 15:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music of Alabama 

message: This article was discussed here before (Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations/Held nominations/Archive1) and was rejected. I almost rewrote the article and is now GA. So, I think it can be added for release. --Be happy!! (talk) 07:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Anger]]

message: This recently reached FA, but I must be honest - it is a pretty minor play (if by a major dramatist). I think we can agree that Gilbert and Sullivan is a major subject that should be covered (and we're in the middle of a drive to get all the major articles up to FA quality), but perhaps it might be best to hold off on including Creatures of Impulse - a very minor play of Gilbert's - until it can be part of a set of Gilbert's solo work, all at GA and FA. =) 
I write this as one of the two people responsible for the FA. =) Trust me, when Gilbert's solo work become part of a featured topic (the long-term goal), you and everyone else will know, because I'll be shouting it from the rooftops. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Creatures of Impulse]] 

message: These articles should be listed as (a) one is now a GA, not a start-class, and the other is a FA (b) every other article that pertains to an Iowa-class battleship is there! (making it a featured topic...if not now, in a few days.) -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 01:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[USS Iowa (BB-61)|USS ''Iowa'' (BB-61)]] and [[Armament of the Iowa class battleship]] 

message: The nomination procedure states that all FAs have been selected for inclusion, but at least two FAs on dinosaur genera, including Majungasaurus and Thescelosaurus were not selected, according to this. There are also a number of GAs also not selected which might qualify. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We do not select all FAs as a rule, but there was a dinosaur set nomination, and if I recall, all the FAs at the time were selected - but that was a long time ago now!  If the FAs or GAs are on relatively obscure species, they may not make it in, since importance is a major factor.  I'm away, but I'll look into it when I get home later this week. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 04:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if that's NOT true, you should have told us. I've been happily presuming that all the FAs I worked on were in the list, and now you announce, no, they aren't, just as you're about to prepare things for publication.  Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The nomination procedure indicates that all FAs are automatically nominated - and all FAs are being reviewed.  But that doesn't mean they will be selected.  Still, we can request a manual nomination for these, and see what the reviewer thinks. Walkerma (talk) 04:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But were they actually nominated? Have people actually gone through them and evaluated them? If they have, where? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

text: OK, thanks for the reply Walkerma. There were a great number of dinosaur FAs after the set nomination, but as far as I can see, only Majungasaurus and Thescelosaurus among the FAs were left out, and those were not the last two FAs. I fear they may have been left out due to the importance criterion. However, each of these FAs cite 30+ papers, so obscurity isn't really a factor here: there are hundreds of obscure dinosaur genera sitting on museum shelves collecting dust, many in need of study, or now completely lost, and others known from a single bone or even a bone fragment, so at least from a paleontological point of view, these two aren't obscure. For this reason, there are many articles on obscure dinosaur genera which can never become FAs, but there were plenty of studies on Majungasaurus and Thescelosaurus: enough for 30-50 citations. Something to consider. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Several Dinosaur FAs haven't been selected 

message: How come the last king of the Frisians and greatest Frisian of all times has not been selected? The article is greatly written and broad in it's coverage and the man it is about is culturally highly important for the ethnic group of the Frisians and in piracy and guerilla tactics which he used in an era those where uncommon. Was signed,
Jouke Bersma  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.172.170.26 (talk) 13:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Pier Gerlofs Donia]] 

message: Why are the nomination categories different from the template categories (Natsci)? Oakwillow (talk) 05:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's simply because nominators have edited things to fit their own preferences.  The ten template categories are our official categories, and these will be used in organising the index pages. Walkerma (talk) 03:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories

message: What's up with all the FA nominations? The instructions say not to nominate them because they are automatically included. Should the instructions be changed - perhaps to if you see an FA article that does not have a template on the talk page add it? I see at least one discussion about not including an FA article (Kansas Turnpike) because of its low importance. Oakwillow (talk) 03:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It says that FAs are automatically nominated, but not necessarily selected - indeed, we have rejected some FAs as being too obscure.  These instructions predate the bot - now, in fact, you could say that all articles are now automatically nominated!  Is there an instruction conflict somewhere that I've missed, though?  I know there are a lot of pages to watch!  Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 01:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: FA?

message: Wikipedia:WikiProject September 11, 2001 is a new project, so we never got notifications about 0.7 selections.  But, I saw notices elsewhere.  We went through the list of articles selected by the bot and found those that fall within scope of our project.  See list.  The sections were mostly okay, and we are working to clean up articles with deficiencies.  But, there are a couple articles we recommend removing from the selection, and have replacements in mind (listed on the nominations page).  I'm not sure if there is a place to recommend selection removals, so I'm noting this.
* Loose Change (film) was picked but the more general article on 9/11 conspiracy theories was not picked by the bot.  I suggest including the general 9/11 conspiracy theories article, and not including Loose Change.  
* World Trade Center (film) is only start class, and recommend removing it from the list of selections. There are some better choices, such as Construction of the World Trade Center (FA).  
* Also, the bot picked American Airlines Flight 11, American Airlines Flight 77, and United Airlines Flight 93 (all FAs), but not United Airlines Flight 175.  Though Flight 175 is not a FA, it would seem odd to omit it with the other three included.
--Aude (talk) 22:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selection removals 

message: I see the dispute thing is struck out.  How can someone nominate an article for further review if it is not worthy of WP 1.0 and somehow got through? Gigs (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Things are on hold until 0.7 comes out.  We will probably have a redesigned system for 0.8.  Can you tell me what is the problem article, and why it's a problem?  Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 14:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reply.  My query was regarding Michael Everson.  If you have time, I'd appreciate your input as a neutral 3rd party, in addition to you looking into this for WP 1.0 purposes.  This entry on the BLP noticeboard sums up the situation.  The article itself has currently been locked by one of Everson's colleagues who also happens to be an administrator.  Gigs (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nominate for removal? 

message: The page is currently set for nomination for 0.7, but it also says that nominations for 0.7 are closed. When will the manual nominations open for 0.8? I would like to nominate an article that is not in the selection bot list. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  next release version 

message: Not to be rude or anything, but some of the nominations here date back to 2008. The lack of maintenance of this page is somewhat of a disincentive to nominating high-quality and/or high-importance articles. Tezero (talk) 01:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are the reviewers dead 

message: This seems to be a defunct page. Stuff I put up a year and a half ago is still unreviewed, and there has been no activity on this Talk page since March 2009. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defunct page