266:
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
131:
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
373:
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
158:
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
42:
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)
59:, 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.
178:
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 {{
145:
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,
388:
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
219:
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?
408:(#39). I'm only hesitating because several of the articles are at the stub/start level, including some major rivers like the
139:
233:
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?
142:, 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!
135:
Meanwhile all of the articles still have a "discuss this nomination" template, presumably we need a "passed" template too?
89:
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.
124:
22:
310:
Passed pages should not be "passed" and "nom" at the same time. Twice-nominated pages should be twice-tagged.
367:
426:
416:
378:
344:
314:
293:
271:
257:
242:
223:
209:
195:
173:
149:
108:
93:
76:
63:
29:
204:
190:
183:
163:
397:
128:
340:
289:
253:
238:
179:
127:
in the set (it claims to be the #1 spectator sport in Oz), and to support less strongly the
104:
248:
What if this member is already a nominee? Should I remove it from the nomination list?
423:
413:
393:
375:
146:
73:
56:
48:
26:
119:
I went to add my comments on the test, but apparently the discussion is complete.
405:
389:
52:
284:
And what about the templates (nom and set nom) on the article's discussion page?
409:
336:
311:
285:
268:
249:
234:
220:
201:
187:
170:
100:
90:
60:
401:
138:
For some reason the template is adding all of the nominations to
422:
How does the top 10 look? Maybe that would be better.
200:As for the template, I fixed that yesterday too...
72:OK, just a thought. Thanks for the quick response.
47:Well, the transclusion of nomination pages (As in
123:I wanted to support strongly the inclusion of
267:passes in one nomination, it passes, period.
8:
374:latest version of this template. Thanks,
363:I noticed that an error in the template
140:Category:Unassessed Version 0.5 articles
412:(#9). Is this worth putting together?
7:
14:
99:The procedure seems to be good.
1:
132:before the pass goes through.
39:Good work, and you're quick.
427:08:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
417:06:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
443:
400:(#4, with Missouri), the
379:03:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
345:16:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
315:15:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
294:08:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
272:08:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
258:06:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
243:06:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
224:20:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
210:04:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
196:04:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
174:09:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
150:06:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
125:Australian rules football
109:08:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
94:06:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
77:05:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
64:05:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
30:04:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
23:Template talk:0.5 set nom
335:Ok, done, thanks. :)
35:Place to discuss noms
398:Mississippi River
359:Error in template
129:Canadian football
434:
372:
366:
207:
193:
168:
162:
115:Team sports test
442:
441:
437:
436:
435:
433:
432:
431:
386:
370:
364:
361:
343:
292:
256:
241:
231:
205:
191:
166:
160:
117:
107:
87:
85:Test nomination
37:
19:
12:
11:
5:
440:
438:
430:
429:
385:
382:
360:
357:
356:
355:
354:
353:
352:
351:
350:
349:
348:
347:
339:
324:
323:
322:
321:
320:
319:
318:
317:
301:
300:
299:
298:
297:
296:
288:
277:
276:
275:
274:
261:
260:
252:
237:
230:
227:
217:
216:
215:
214:
213:
212:
198:
153:
152:
143:
136:
133:
116:
113:
112:
111:
103:
86:
83:
82:
81:
80:
79:
67:
66:
36:
33:
18:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
439:
428:
425:
421:
420:
419:
418:
415:
411:
407:
403:
399:
395:
394:Yangtze River
391:
383:
381:
380:
377:
369:
358:
346:
342:
338:
334:
333:
332:
331:
330:
329:
328:
327:
326:
325:
316:
313:
309:
308:
307:
306:
305:
304:
303:
302:
295:
291:
287:
283:
282:
281:
280:
279:
278:
273:
270:
265:
264:
263:
262:
259:
255:
251:
247:
246:
245:
244:
240:
236:
228:
226:
225:
222:
211:
208:
203:
199:
197:
194:
189:
185:
181:
177:
176:
175:
172:
165:
157:
156:
155:
154:
151:
148:
144:
141:
137:
134:
130:
126:
122:
121:
120:
114:
110:
106:
102:
98:
97:
96:
95:
92:
84:
78:
75:
71:
70:
69:
68:
65:
62:
58:
54:
50:
46:
45:
44:
40:
34:
32:
31:
28:
24:
16:
406:Ganges River
390:Amazon River
387:
362:
232:
218:
118:
88:
41:
38:
20:
410:Congo River
368:0.5 set nom
21:Please see
404:(#29) and
186:}} on it.
184:pollbottom
182:}} and {{
424:Maurreen
414:Walkerma
376:Walkerma
229:Question
147:Walkerma
74:Maurreen
27:Maurreen
17:Template
180:polltop
402:Danube
396:(#3),
392:(#2),
384:Rivers
337:NCurse
312:Nifboy
286:NCurse
269:Nifboy
250:NCurse
235:NCurse
221:Nifboy
171:Nifboy
101:NCurse
91:Nifboy
61:Nifboy
55:, and
169:tag.
341:work
290:work
254:work
239:work
202:Tito
188:Tito
164:V0.5
105:work
57:AFD
49:FAC
371:}}
365:{{
206:xd
192:xd
167:}}
161:{{
53:PR
51:,
25:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.