Jump to content

Wikipedia:Version 0.5 Set Nominations/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page contains all previously nominated sets nominated for 0.5. When the list grows too big, archive it.

Nominations

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was passed. Titoxd(?!?) 06:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Test nomination (aka Team Sports)

[edit]

Apparently we've decided to make this the team sports nomination. Cool.

later additions:

(Yes, this is a totally serious nomination)

A pair of articles that are both FA and VA yet aren't on the 0.5 list. Nifboy 06:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I'd prefer to see something more defined. That is, mainly, at least take out tennis and chess. They don't go well with the rest. Also, how do these compare with Rugby and Australian rules football? (I'm not sure.) Maurreen 06:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or Canadian football. Since Rugby is a VA I've added that, not sure about Australian rules... Nifboy 06:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I haven't read any of them yet, but it makes sense as a worthy set. Maurreen 07:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd send Tennis and Chess to the individual listings page, and then pass the rest as a set. Titoxd(?!?) 01:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Continents

[edit]

These are all classed as Core Topics, so a decent B is all we need even for a standalone.

We may also want to debate including the parent, Continent. This is also listed as a Core Topic, but it is only Start-Class and is tagged for cleanup at the moment. Walkerma 05:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC) I still need to tag some of the talk pages, I'll do this tomorrow when I return, but we can start discussing these now. Sorry about that! Walkerma 13:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

European countries

[edit]

List of European countries Looks complete to me

Footnotes

[edit]
  1. ^ Finnish autonomous province.
  2. ^ Danish autonomous province.
  3. ^ British overseas territory.
  4. ^ a b c British crown dependency.
  5. ^ a b Norwegian overseas territory.

Discussion

[edit]

The ones in italics could be omitted if we wish, though some such as Gibraltar can be small but important. Walkerma 01:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We should have them in there; Gibraltar has been fought over in the past by Spain and the UK and the others, it would not hurt. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have been trying to add more refs to the Gibraltar pages, but much of my effort is taken up with arguments from those who want it rewritten in Spanish Otherwise its a good overview, largely factual and by far better than encarta etc. --Gibnews

My only immediate concern is Åland, which has redlinks for subarticles. I haven't given a real hard look at the entire list, but these are vital enough that any spectacular quality concerns should be fixed prior to release rather than the topics removed. Nifboy 05:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All sub articles, except for a few are red links and important government officials article's are also redlinks, so this is a major concern. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming we use User:BozMo's script as used for the SOS CD, all redlinks are stripped out. I doubt we would be including the sub-articles for countries anyway (except for a few major countries), so the fact that things like Economy of Åland are missing is unimportant. Most of the usable links are just to other countries, if we pass this (or most of it) as a set. I think the script can even take out the {{main}} template, so just consider the article as a standalone without the sub-articles. Thanks, Walkerma 07:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia_talk:Version_0.5_Country_Review for some comments.

If there are no objections by Sunday I will pass all of these, since they all seem to meet the quality requirements for countries (B or above). Walkerma 04:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After negotiotions in Wiena about future status of Kosovo and Metohia, we should concider puting this Serbian province on the list. --Pockey 13:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's very useful! It can be hard to keep up with these things! I will add it to the general nominations section, where it can probably stand on its own merits. I hesitate to add it here because it's not YET a country and I don't want to get drawn into a heated debate! If the status changes in the coming weeks we will be sure to change our placing of the article. Thanks a lot, Walkerma 14:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No more comments, so the full set was passed as listed above. Kosovo, England, Wales and Scotland were submitted as individual nominations at WP:V0.5N. Walkerma 05:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical elements

[edit]

Based on responses to my earlier query (see below) I am nominating all of the chemical elements that have been discovered so far (no undiscovered ones!). I do not propose to tag all 115 or so elements, I only tagged hydrogen (#1). Can you please just take a look at Periodic table (standard) for the list.

Earlier comments (copied from Wikipedia_talk:Version_0.5_Nominations#Chemical_elements

I see some elements appearing in 0.5, and this prompts me to ask a question I've wondered for many months - what should we include? As a chemist myself, I'm pretty familiar with the element articles, and most of them are at least B-Class. It seems to me that we should definitely have elements like iron and oxygen, but beyond that it's debatable. So let's debate it, then I'll put together a set nomination. Which should we go for? I think I favour option 2 or 3, though of course I'd most like 4!

Option 1
Only the most familiar 20 or so elements like copper and hydrogen.
Option 2
All of the main group elements up to barium, plus lead and the commoner transition metals like gold and platinum, about 50 in all.
Option 3
All of the main group elements up to barium and all d-block transition metals up to mercury, also include radon, radium, thorium, uranium and plutonium from the radioactives. Omit the lanthanides, except for lanthanum, cerium and samarium (note - much of my research uses elements like dysprosium!). Around 80 in all.
Option 4
Just include the whole lot of them (those that have been discovered) around 114 of them.

Walkerma 07:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Periodic table (standard). The main group is groups 1, 2, then 13-end. Walkerma 07:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is that I would not object to including all of them.
The longer answer -- None of them are trivia. Including all might make us heavy in chemistry, but at least we'd be heavy in an important area, in my view. The elements are close to the top of the tree. They are a finite set and a reasonable number. If you are confident of their quality, then I think they should all be included. Maurreen 08:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, since this has been started here, if we get a clear consensus, any which way, we could maybe skip the set nomination stage. Maurreen 08:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maurreen +1! I think if we include all europian countries, all planets, then we should include all of the elements. Of course, if there is no stub among them. NCurse work 09:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
New comments

Rivers

[edit]

Places are rank very high for Version 0.5, but these include more than just countries and cities. Rivers often have important significance in culture, the economy and the development of civilizations.

This set was taken from List of rivers by length, I chose the list, the longest 10, and a few other important ones, esp. decent articles from underrepresented areas. I excluded the Ob river, because (a) it's in Siberia and (b) it's only a Start and (c) much of the great length is shared with the Irtysh. I also omitted #10, the Lena River as being low importance. We already have Zambezi, an FA.

Not top 10 length
  • Mekong B (#12) Important in SE Asia
  • Murray River Good B, majority of #15, biggest in Oz.
  • Volga River B, #16, national river of Russia, longest in Europe
  • Euphrates Poor B, #17, cradle of civilization
  • Ganges River B, only #39, but regarded as a Hindu goddess, and 8.5% of the world's population live in its catchment area.
Other possibilities that have decent articles (not tagged till I see comments)

Nominated by Walkerma 07:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Later proposed additions (see comments below)
Comments

Added in from V0.5N talk, after Kirill had posted:

Rivers: – good list! I agree on including the Indus and the Danube.
Proposed additions:
The current Murray article is similar in quality to the Darling; the current Tigris and Jordan river articles are of poor B quality. RickJP 10:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with these additions, particularly the Jordan River. Perhaps the Colorado River and Columbia River also merit inclusion? --Lethargy 14:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newer comments:

All good ideas. I would also include a few shorter rivers:
  • Tigris #63, Start, the other half of the "cradle of civilization"
  • Rhine #111, B, vital historical river, traditional border between France & Germany
Kirill Lokshin 19:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good list including the suggestions, I'd definitely include the Indus, Danube, and Rhine. Rivers that are commonly paired together it would be nice to include both pairs (Euphrates-Tigris, Darling-Murray, Mississippi-Missouri). Also nice would be Mackenzie, Niger, and Jordan - though their articles aren't as good as most of the rivers in this list. I think the Columbia and/or Thames could be included on account of having decent articles. Kmusser 16:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put all the new proposals up above. Bearing in mind that the clear consensus is towards inclusion rather exclusion, I would support adding all of the above except the Mackenzie (long if you include the Peace River, but only a Start and very remote like the Siberian rivers. When I put the list together I tried to avoid Starts, that's why I didn't originally propose Niger, Tigris, Mackenzie and others. It would be nice to see if we can get all of these up to B-Class minimum before Version 1.0 comes out. Walkerma 16:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Centuries

[edit]

Century articles tell what happened in a century, so people probably would want to read them. They are all lists. Eyu100 17:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems lopsided to have these and not earlier stuff. Maybe instead either milleniums or
Maurreen 16:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like these, but can also see Maurreen's point. Could we have broader eras up to/including the 9th century, then every century after that? I think these century lists are pretty nice timelines. By all means add in the others too - aren't some of the Core topics along these lines? Walkerma 05:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding everything up to 100 BC and adding all the articles Maureen suggested. Eyu100 18:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If these have been added, why don't they appear at Wikipedia:Version 0.5? Maurreen 18:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we should include all listed here. NCurse work 15:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I support including all of these. They don't appear in V0.5 yet because "adding" referred to the above listing only, I presume they'll be added if the consensus supports that. Walkerma 15:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have tagged all the century articles. I'll finish adding the rest tomorrow. Walkerma 04:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lakes and seas

[edit]

For geographical items we have now nominated continents, countries, world cities, oceans and rivers. The only missing part of the "water" based section would seem to be lakes and seas - hence this nomination. I also added a few important shipping lanes & canals. As with rivers, this list limited just to really major ones.

Africa
Asia
Europe
North America
South America

(Lake Maracaibo would have been included, but the article is just too poor at present).

Possibles:

  • Lake Toba: Start. Formed from volcanic eruptions, last eruption 70,000 years ago was probably the largest in the world in the last 2 million years.
  • Issyk Kul: Start, 2nd largest mountain lake in the world (after Titicaca). (+ a favourite of mine!)
  • Lake Tahoe: Looks A-Class, small lake but major tourist site in US (hence this SUV name!).
Seas

Many large seas have only Start-class articles, and only the really major ones are included here.

Important shipping lanes/canals

Along with the rivers, I think that covers most of the bodies of water we need for V0.5! Walkerma 04:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like it; although I don't have a real good geographic/historic background, it looks like a good set to complete the superset of watery articles. Nifboy 17:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I nominated Caspian Sea at the Article Creation and Improvement Drive. Hopefully they will help clean it up. --Lethargy 18:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with these, although I feel we should include a few more. Some possibilities (in no particular order):

Other possibilities

[edit]
  • List of world's largest lakes
  • Lake Vostok - a subglacial lake, the largest in Antarctica.
  • Lake Superior - North America's largest, largest freshwater by area, and second largest on earth.
  • Lake Chad - "economically very important, providing water to more than 20 million people living in the four countries which surround it — Chad, Cameroon, Niger and Nigeria."
  • Hudson Bay - a massive bay in Canada.
Reservoirs
[edit]
There are also several reservoirs we could include, off the top of my head:

--Lethargy 14:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rejected
[edit]

These are too early in development to be considered.

The list of largest lakes is great, but the other lakes will have to be reviewed carefully - many of them are just Start-Class. When I put together the original list, I tried to limit the number of Start-Class articles - there are only three on the main list, all REALLY important (Aral Sea, Titicaca and Tanganyika). I reviewed and rejected several on your list such as Lake Balkhash (even though I've seen it and am partial to it!) for this reason. Another factor is importance - either proximity to human settlement/tourism, or geological/geographical - that's why Lake Geneva (2nd biggest FW lake in Europe) might be considered more important than Great Slave Lake, despite its smaller size. The Great Lakes need to be discussed - I think the joint article is a nice one and covers them well, but if everyone wants the individual ones too (though often only Starts) we could go that route. I think Lake Ladoga and Hudson Bay look usable, and Lake Chad may be important enough to include as a Start, but what do others think? I think we should definitely consider adding Three Gorges Dam and probably Hoover Dam too so we don't miss these. As for the reservoirs, Lake Mead is important but only Start-Class, but Lake Powell is a B - I could go either way on those two. Walkerma 16:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of including the largest lake from each continent, that is why I put Lake Superior on the list. But yes, we need to discuss this further, perhaps we should see if we can get anyone else from Wikipedia:WikiProject Lakes to chime in? --Lethargy 17:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All those I have moved to the rejected section are too short, too messy, or not important enough to be included. I added this section so people can see what has already been proposed. --Lethargy 00:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your work on this, and for being so understanding too. I'm not an expert on this topic, so your expertise is extremely welcome. I also appreciate your posting on WP:Lakes. Hopefully by the next version we can include everything above! Thanks, Walkerma 03:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged all of the ones that were not on the rejected list, except for Lakes Geneva & Balaton which need a bit more work. Hopefully we'll get them next time around. Canals were placed under the continents with the rivers, the others were placed (also by continent where appropriate) in the bodies of water section Walkerma 03:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Version_0.5_Set_Nominations/Archive&oldid=147601879"