Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week/Removed/2005/Archive 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Desktop computer (1 vote in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated June 11 2005;Needs 5 votes by June 18 2005

Support

  1. --Zxcvbnm 17:51, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

Fish reproduction (1 vote in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated June 12 2005;Needs 5 votes by June 19 2005

Support

  1. --Aramգուտանգ 06:08, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • After being fascinated by curious fish behaviour at a local pond, I searched throughout Wikipedia to determine if this was a mating ritual, and was surprised at the lack of information about fish reproduction. This is certainly an article that can be quite lengthy and interesting, including curious mating habits of various fish, embryo development, etc. --Aramգուտանգ 06:08, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • That should be a redirect to reproduction for the time being. Reproduction is also one of the nominees for COTW.

Information Age (9 votes in two weeks)[edit]

Nominated June 7, 2005; Needs 10 votes by June 21, 2005

Support

  1. --EatAlbertaBeef 03:30, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. --ZeWrestler 05:32, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. Fenice 10:55, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  4. Spikeballs 18:02, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Deus Ex 16:30, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  6. --ElfWord 12:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  7. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  8. --sars 12:53, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Mred64 16:39, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • This is a topic that has changed the world and the way we live, and in fact, we're living in the Information Age. I'm extremelly surprised there is not a proper article for this subject.--EatAlbertaBeef 03:30, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Isn't Wikipedia one of the many children of the Information Age?! Spikeballs 18:02, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Atomic Age (11 votes in 3 weeks)[edit]

Nominated May 31 2005; Needs 15 votes by June 21 2005

Support:

  1. Dmcdevit 05:26, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sean Curtin 07:56, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
  3. ZeWrestler 21:39, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  4. 500LL 09:43, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Fenice 06:44, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  6. Newbie222 01:30, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  7. Superm401 | Talk 02:06, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
  8. WB 01:09, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
  9. King Nine 17:26, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  10. Pharos 07:49, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  11. Ombudsman 07:20, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Kind of surprised about the state of this article. It's an important concept in modern history, and one we hear a lot about, even in common speech. --Dmcdevit 05:26, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Frontier Wars (9 votes in 2 weeks)[edit]

Nominated June 7 2005; Needs 10 votes by June 21, 2005

Support:

  1. brian0918™ 04:29, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. Falphin 22:09, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. Fenice 10:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  4. TheFountainhead 03:40, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  5. --The Anachronism 17:14, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  6. ZeWrestler 12:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  7. Páll 03:17, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  8. Mike H 03:19, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Darwinek 09:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • I've been finding some rather large holes in Wikipedia's content lately, just by comparing recent archaeological news to Wikipedia's articles. Wikipedia hasn't even heard of King Mgolombane Sandile or the AmaRharhabe kingdom, and barely notices the 100 years of warfare that took place in South Africa. I'm just hoping that an article on "one of the most prolonged struggles by African peoples against European intrusion" will have more content than a veritable "episode list" of wars. (original source for inspiration)
  • Would be an interesting COTW. Falphin 22:09, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Babylonia (19 votes in 4 weeks)[edit]

Nominated May 25 2005; needs 20 votes by June 22 2005

Support:

  1. Revolución 02:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Falphin 17:23, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Phoenix2 03:11, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. RexNL 10:22, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. G Rutter 13:56, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wragge 17:18, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
  7. Junes 20:20, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Tothebarricades.tk 07:00, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  9. NeoJustin 02:49 May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Stancel 01:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  11. Fenice 06:39, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  12. —thames 19:12, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  13. olivier 03:29, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  14. Jacoplane 17:32, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  15. Superm401 | Talk 21:30, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  16. Sean Curtin 01:25, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  17. gren 06:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  18. Newbie222 01:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  19. Dmcdevit 18:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Pitiful stub about a very important civilisation. Also keeping with the ancient civilisations trend on COTW. Revolución 02:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia definitely needs a strong article about Babylonia Phoenix2 03:11, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I absolutely agree. This is considered by many historians to be the first "civilization"(I realize it's a subjective term) Superm401 | Talk 21:30, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

History of Italy (11 votes in 3 weeks)[edit]

Nominated June 2 2005;Needs 15 votes by June 23 2005

Support

  1. Falphin 15:28, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. ZeWrestler 21:40, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. Juppiter 18:47, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  4. NeoJustin 01:40, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Fenice 06:54, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  6. Newbie222 01:30, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  7. — Dan | Talk 19:09, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Jacoplane 13:59, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  9. Joolz 11:14, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  10. Mike H 00:16, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  11. --T. K. Leibniz the Ineffable 12:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • This would be an easy COTW, since it has all the information just no overview article. Falphin 15:28, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I copied the history summary from the main Italy article. It is not enough, but it will do for a while. More important is that most of the subpages are quite short and could much use extra content. - SimonP 14:58, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Three cheers for history articles. — Dan | Talk 19:09, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)


Storm (5 votes in 2 weeks)[edit]

Nominated June 9 2005; Needs 10 votes by June 23, 2005

Support:

  1. Falphin 17:17, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. Fenice 08:57, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. ZeWrestler 16:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  4. Revolución 04:33, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  5. brian0918™ 13:04, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • This basic article seems to be really lacking. Falphin 17:17, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Needs expansion. Revolución 04:33, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

European Union Arms Embargo on China (5 votes in 2 weeks)[edit]

Nominated June 9 2005;Needs 10 votes by June 23 2005

Support

  1. Jacoplane 21:50, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. —thames 22:55, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. Falphin 00:51, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  4. Joolz 02:03, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  5. gren 06:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • This is a very current topic, I was very surprised to find there was no article on it. I created the stub but I think much more needs to be done. Jacoplane 21:50, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • please read this wikinews [1] Sqkvii 01:45, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • This should probably be under articles on the EU, China, or embargoes, or at least linked to each, since this page is too specific to really justify a stand-alone.
    • I think there's more to be said about it than you may imagine. -- Joolz 23:46, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Butterman (1 vote in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated June 16, 2005; Needs 5 votes by June 23, 2005

Support:

  1. Infobacker 20:06, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • When I first saw this article, I figured it should have been speedily deleted. After a little while of trying to figure out how to do this, I suddenly realized that I could do something with this article. It isn't much, but at least it looks good now. Infobacker 20:05, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • You're kidding, right? Speedy deletion seems right to me. Google turns up zilch. --Dhartung | Talk 06:30, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Deletion seems to be the way to go as far as I'm concerned. -sars 12:59, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Deleted. No Google hits, and created by User:Leonramkirpaul, who made only that edit. --brian0918™ 18:07, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Ooookay, guess I should have googled it first... --Infobacker 18:53, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Fathers Day (2 votes in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated June 18, 2005;Needs 5 votes by June 25, 2005

Support:

  1. Falphin 21:55, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. Niz 00:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • I believe that this could really be expanded. The History is entirely about the U.S. and fathersdays tradition etc are not there. Falphin 21:55, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Independence (6 votes in 2 weeks)[edit]

Nominated June 13 2005; Needs 10 votes by June 27 2005

Support

  1. Beland 06:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. ZeWrestler 18:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. 500LL 18:08, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  4. --Wonderfool t(c)e) 14:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  5. --Zxcvbnm 17:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  6. Revolución 06:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • This article is one of the most wanted stubs, linked to from hundreds of others. -- Beland 06:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • This was recently on COTW voting but it didn't get one vote. [2] Falphin 15:09, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Well now it has 3 votes. There is so much that can be written with this topic, and a wide range of users should be able to contribute to it. --ZeWrestler 00:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • I don't doubt that but it just seemed people weren't interested in interested in it. Thats apparently changed with the increase in traffic here. Falphin 00:41, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

History of painting (8 votes in 2 weeks)[edit]

Nominated June 13 2005; Needs 10 votes by June 27 2005

Support:

  1. Falphin 20:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. Fenice 05:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. olivier 09:11, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  4. brian0918™ 21:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  5. — Sverdrup 16:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  6. Darwinek 09:37, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  7. GregLoutsenko 12:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  8. Milena June 28, 2005 12:16 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Very little on this page, I believe it would be an easy COTW. Falphin 20:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Very important article which can link many topics together and be very usefull for general public--GregLoutsenko 14:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

History of art (9 votes in 2 weeks)[edit]

Nominated June 13 2005; Needs 10 votes by June 27 2005

Support:

  1. Falphin 20:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. brian0918™ 21:41, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. Fenice 05:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  4. olivier 09:11, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  5. gren 06:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  6. Darwinek 09:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  7. Eixo 01:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  8. lots of issues | leave me a message 09:07, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  9. Imperialles 09:13, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • The info is already on subpages just needs its own. Falphin 20:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Human embryo (2 votes in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated June 20, 2005; Needs 5 votes by June 27, 2005

Support:

  1. KNewman 04:12, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Falphin 13:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Current Embryo article has just two paragraphs about animals. The Human and Childbirth articles have references to early stages of human development, but I believe this to be an extremely important topic. Honestly speaking, I know nothing about this, so I won't be able to contibute :). Please, remove this nomination, if I overlooked some other article that deals with this topic in detail. KNewman 04:12, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • The Embryo article itself should probably be nominated. Falphin 13:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I agree. Embryo is a very short stub. More worthy topic, and you could include information about the human embryo in the article. Revolución 05:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Embryo topic has now been nominated further below. — RJH 21:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd support this if it were renamed Human embryogenesis. An article called Human embryo is bound to end up a promotional pamphlet of pro-life-activists, which we do not need because we already have about a dozen of these. --Fenice 07:55, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree with Fenice, also the embryo isn't actually that interesting, its the process of Embryogenesis that should be expanded upon.--nixie 03:59, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ancient Egypt (21 votes in 5 weeks)[edit]

Nominated May 24 2005; needs 25 votes by June 28 2005

Support:

  1. Revolución 19:55, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ZeWrestler 20:59, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Carolaman 01:09, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Lightamplification 02:59, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. RexNL 10:21, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Falphin 18:24, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Junes 20:14, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. SimonP 04:23, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Mihoshi 00:34, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Tothebarricades.tk 06:59, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  11. Stancel 01:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  12. kaal 19:11, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  13. Fenice 06:39, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  14. Pjamescowie 05:39, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  15. Superm401 | Talk 02:07, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
  16. Jacoplane 17:32, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  17. olivier 03:29, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  18. Mark Lewis 22:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  19. brian0918™ 02:43, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  20. Howabout1 Talk to me! 15:58, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  21. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  22. Pharos 29 June 2005 21:16 (UTC) Striking vote, it's already been relatively well developed.

Comments:

  • Nomination for same reasons as Ancient Rome, this is just a collection of links. It would be nice to have a good overview article, also keeping with the ancient civilisations trend here on COTW. ;-) Revolución 19:55, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The age of Ancient Egypt never ceases to amaze me. Cleopatra's life and death is closer to us than the building of the pyramids!

Mihoshi 00:34, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Definitely needs an overview article. --Tothebarricades.tk 06:59, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • This article has done rather well since its initial nomination. Phoenix2 18:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Agreed, I don't think there is any reason to remove votes though since it needs to be archived anyway. Falphin 29 June 2005 21:28 (UTC)
      • Well, I just voted a couple of minutes ago to try to save the nomination but changed my mind almost immediately after when I saw its state of development.--Pharos 29 June 2005 21:34 (UTC)
        • Yeah, I was going to vote to keep it in to, but it's no longer a stub, which is a good thing, really! -- Joolz 29 June 2005 22:09 (UTC)
          • Just because it's not technically a stub anymore doesn't mean it doesn't need a lotta work. It's an important article! Revolución 30 June 2005 21:10 (UTC)

Culture of Iraq (13 votes in 3 weeks)[edit]

Nominated June 7 2005; Needs 15 votes by June 28, 2005

Support:

  1. Falphin 01:49, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. Revolución 02:00, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. NatusRoma 20:35, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  4. Fenice 10:55, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  5. Pharos 02:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  6. Howabout1 Talk to me! 16:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  7. 500LL 19:10, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  8. —thames 19:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  9. Dhartung | Talk 06:39, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  10. Columbia 11:40, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
  11. gren 06:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  12. Darwinek 09:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  13. Mouvement July 1, 2005 19:47 (UTC)

Comments:

  • This is an important topic with little on it. Its currnetly the number one hit on google and therfore should be expanded. Falphin 01:49, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • This definitely needs to be expanded. Revolución 02:00, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • My God, is it POV right now. --Dhartung | Talk 06:39, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, infact, nothing against the contributers, I think we should start from scratch if this became the COTW. Falphin 16:35, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Iraq is culture...Cradle of Civilization... this article should not be so small :O gren 06:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think this needs editing because, with the US war, it would be a popular page.

Wendy's (2 votes in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated on June 21, 2005 (UTC) needs 5 votes by June 28.

This chain is a very important part of world culture. It has a major influence on the current world events with its inventive menu. This article is far too short and rambling.

Support:

  1. kralahome 20:01, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Newbie222 01:47, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Important part of world culture, hmmm... KNewman 21:55, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • I disagree, this is not a "important part of world culture". Revolución 22:04, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I also disagree. I'll have to get a more persuasive argument than that to expand it. Mike H 15:36, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • If someone could tell me what Wendy's has to do with world culture, I still wouldn't vote for it. Phoenix2 23:50, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It doesn't "have a major influence on the current world events with its inventive menu" either. Name one current world event that was influenced by Wendy's "inventive" menu. Revolución 05:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • By being the first to introduce healthy items ons its menu it led all the other fast food chains to introduce healthy items, just changing the face of fast food chains. These items are helping fight back the obsitity epidemic. kralahome 5:19, 23 June 2005
  • The importance of Wendy's was shown during the presidential campaign, when unfamiliarity with the all-American menu's favorites such as the chili cup doomed Teresa Heinz Kerry's candidacy for First Lady. Frankly, there hasn't been any coverage of this incident either; it deserves its own article. --Dhartung | Talk 21:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Where's the beef? Mike H 04:15, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree with Mike.--Fenice 08:13, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I wasn't trying to make a real point...just a way to cite a kitschy '80s catch phrase. Mike H (Talking is hot) 00:16, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
        • Oh really?--Fenice 05:10, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I've not heard of this fast food chain much at all. If it was so important, I would of. The only world-notable fast food chains are KFC, McDonalds and Burger King. The rest don't run across the world. Hedley 29 June 2005 23:20 (UTC)

Space Age (14 votes in 3 weeks)[edit]

Nominated June 8 2005;Needs 15 votes by June 29, 2005

Support:

  1. Falphin 17:14, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. Mike H 18:23, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
  3. TheFountainhead 03:36, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  4. lots of issues | leave me a message 06:54, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) Good find! No matter what the vote lets work on it now.
  5. Phoenix2 23:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  6. Fenice 08:56, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  7. Youngamerican 19:57, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  8. Pharos 23:21, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) Despite my comments below, I've come to the conclusion that the Space Age is important as a cultural concept.
  9. R Lee E 03:53, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Trevor macinnis 22:44, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  11. The Kohninater 04:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  12. Caeonosphere 13:28, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  13. Imperialles 08:55, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  14. Dmcdevit 30 June 2005 21:38 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Three sentences is the entire article. Falphin 17:14, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • With a lot of hard work, there is enough information for this to become a featured article. Phoenix2 23:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, it's hard to think of exactly what could go into a featured-quality long-length article under "Space Age". Perhaps you mean Space Race; otherwise the general topic is Space exploration. I don't know what else "Space Age" could cover other than its temporal denifition (which it does now and is therefore necessarily quite short), or maybe the effect of space exploration on culture (which is itself an interesting topic).--Pharos 02:44, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • OK, but there is still enough for it to be much better than it is now. Phoenix2 19:39, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • But expanded in what vein? This should not just duplicate other articles on space exploration. The "effect on culture" angle is the only one I can think of that might allow this to develop to a decent, non-trivial, non-redundant article. What do you think?--Pharos 20:13, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Yes, it seems as if this article can only be expanded to a certain extent. Phoenix2 16:41, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • The more I think about it, the more I see how this is important as a cultural concept. From Googie in architecture to the Blue Marble in the environmental movement, space exploration has left a real impression on the Earth.--Pharos 23:21, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The space age encompasses not current American exploration the Space Race but commercial ventures, derivative technology, education reform in the US, and even design style.

lots of issues | leave me a message 00:25, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

United States Bicentennial (6 votes in 2 weeks)[edit]

Nominated June 15, 2005; Needs 10 votes by June 29, 2005

Support:

  1. ℬastique▼talk 15:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. Mike H 15:55, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Columbia 13:21, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Newbie222 23:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  5. slambo 13:43, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Volatile 23:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • This, of course is a particularly US-Centric article. I was surprised that there had not even been a stub created. 1976 was a major event in its own right, as important as Y2K to those of us in the US. As well as quite memorable to those of us who lived through it (although myself I was only 9 years old). There were innumerable celebrations around the nation, and it contributed to other things, for instance, the celebration and gatherings in New York City are often cited as the initial source of the spread of AIDS in the United States. It is often used in literature and news articles. ℬastique▼talk 15:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • This means that a lot of countries on this planet with a considerably long history will need the same kind of article. Doesn't look encyclopedic at all, but that's just me. Let's hear it from other Wikipedians. KNewman 15:53, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
      • It's not an issue of "did this country pass 200 years" but "did this country pass 200 years with grand parties pretty much everywhere"? Don't we have articles on the jubilees in Britain? Mike H 16:01, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • The celebration leading up to the US bicentennial were some of the largest in my country's history. I'd be willing to vote for this. Mike H 16:01, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • I just found out there's a stub on United States Bicentennial. ℬastique▼talk 18:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Part of the celebration that is often overlooked by those who are not railfans was that of American railroads. Many of the largest railroads in the country painted some of their equipment in special bicentennial paint schemes (such as this Santa Fe Railroad locomotive). Trains magazine had an article about this recently, I'll see if I can dig it out of my archives again... slambo 13:40, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Basque Country (7 votes in 2 weeks)[edit]

Nominated June 15, 2005; Needs 10 votes by June 29, 2005

Support:

  1. Revolución 19:30, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. —thames 19:37, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. Falphin 21:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  4. Newbie222 23:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  5. Fenice 18:15, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  6. Mike H 18:01, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Darwinek 09:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

Midtown (Manhattan) (2 votes in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated on 17:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC); needs 5 votes by 29 June 2005.

It's really too short.

Support:

  1. P3Pp3r 17:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. Fenice 08:17, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Cradle of Civilization (2 votes in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated on 19:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC); needs 5 votes by 29 June 2005.

A common term and wouldn't be difficult to expand

Support:

  1. Falphin 19:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. ZeWrestler 19:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • A common term, yes, but what exactly is this article supposed to be about? Civilization originated independently in a number of places, not just Mesopotamia. Maybe this should just redirect to the Civilization article, where the origins of civilization as well as the earliest civilization are discussed.--Pharos 21:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I believe it should include sections on history and usage of the term. Also, I believe it needs an overview of areas known as "Cradles of Civilization." Finally, it needs a Popular cultural section on it. I don't believe it should be redirected. Falphin 00:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mechanised agriculture (6 votes in 2 weeks)[edit]

Nominated June 16, 2005; Needs 10 votes by June 30, 2005

Support:

  1. Grunners 16:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. Pharos 04:51, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) A very important topic in the real world; agriculture is generally underrepresented on Wikipedia.
  3. Spikeballs 02:36, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Fenice 18:17, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  5. Mike H 18:00, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Sentience 04:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Could do with at least a short article, and something different from the normal COTW nominations Grunners 16:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Good topic. Spikeballs 02:36, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • See also factory farming--Sentience 04:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Quest (6 votes in 2 weeks)[edit]

Nominated June 17, 2005; Needs 10 votes by July 1, 2005

Support:

  1. Falphin 02:20, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. Fenice 18:18, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. ZeWrestler 01:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  4. Niz 00:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  5. Newbie222 01:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  6. Imperialles 00:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • A very stubby article, it could use info on famous quests, fictional ones, and failures.(I also just want to have a Q on this list. Falphin 02:20, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Too vague if we try to discuss it outside of the literary term. As it stands a few paragraphs or so could probably be added. --Tothebarricades 03:53, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • I think this could make into a great artical with many sub articals. We have to work on it though in order for it to become Featured artical material. --ZeWrestler 01:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I also think that this article would be to vague and would not be a good article for COTW. Phoenix2 23:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think this is a good nomination, because "quest" has little meaning outside of fiction. Revolución 06:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Age of Sail (3 votes in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated on 00:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC); needs 5 votes by June 30.

It's an incredibly important concept in history, and we see references to it frequently in modernity. Compare with Age of Exploration. This stub is pretty embarassing.

Support:

  1. Dmcdevit 00:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. Falphin 01:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. Fenice 08:26, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • I'm not sure how this article would do. Navy has only done so-so because it is a fairly difficult topic. I don't see how Age of Sail could be anything but more difficult. I may still support but I'm going to wait to see other responses to the nomination. Falphin 00:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I believe this is more of a history-related article, and so any real naval knowledge isn't too necessary. --Dmcdevit 00:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • What exactly would the article include? Falphin 00:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • It's a multi-century period in history, just like the High Middle Ages. I guess that's a good model. --Dmcdevit 22:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • So the article isn't just the name for a historical period but also cultural. And do you think the other two periods should be nominated as well. (Early and Late Middle Ages?). Falphin 01:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            • You know, I had thought it was strange to see the only one of the three with its own article the one that was nominated. If you're considering it, I'd definitely support late, not so sure about early (don't know too much). --Dmcdevit 02:42, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Collaborations of the Week/History of the Bomb

Amsterdam(not a stub)[edit]

Nominated on 03:50, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC); needs 5 votes by 1 July.

I know this is not a stub, however, this article is surprisingly short compared to other city articles. As mentioned on the talk page by User:Big Brother is Watching, "The Rotterdam article is quite a bit longer. Rotterdam has more than 100,000 people less than Amsterdam and it is commonly reffered to as The Netherlands' second city." Also the article is quite messy and is nothing compared to Paris, for example. ---Hottentot

Support:

  1. Hottentot 03:50, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

Execution (legal) (July 4)[edit]

Nominated June 20, 2005;Needs 10 votes by July 4, 2005

Support:

  1. Darwinek 16:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. Falphin 22:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. ZeWrestler 11:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  4. Evil Monkey∴Hello 06:10, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Mike H (Talking is hot) 19:00, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Maitch 21:00, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  7. Fenice 07:49, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  8. 500LL June 29, 2005 19:18 (UTC)

Comments:

  • It's too short. - Darwinek 16:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm amazed that this artical has no meat to it.
  • I'm strongly leaning toward making this a merge with Capital punishment. The latter could use some cleanup but it's no stub. --Dhartung | Talk 16:40, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree, Dartung, the two things are essentially synonyms. ---Mihoshi 18:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I also agree, except that the proper topic of that article is the bit under 'Civil law' at the bottom (that can be another article, this should merge).--Pharos 18:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Isn't this the same thing as "capital punishment"? then, shouldn't this just be a redirect? Revolución 06:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I think this deals with a different subject than capital punishment. There is always a law suit involved in capital punishment, legal executions are executions under war law.--Fenice 07:52, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I encourage everyone (re)considering voting for this to please look at both Execution (legal) and Capital punishment. Then you will see the former is just an inferior version of the latter and should be merged; considering this, it would be rather unforunate if this won without people understanding that the topic is covered elsewhere. (The idea that "legal execution" means capital punishment under military law or even wartime atrocity doesn't make much sense.)--Pharos 29 June 2005 20:14 (UTC)
      • I don't think they are the same. The first sentence states, "iss the act of putting a person to death, with or without judicial process (for cases under judicial process, see capital punishment)." Execution(legal) is quite different. Although the title doesn't suggest so.(Probably should be renamed). The topic deals with Executions that take place outside public legal juristriction. An example is war-time military executions. Falphin 29 June 2005 20:31 (UTC)
      • Frankly, I don't think the first sentence makes a lot of sense; the definitions here are going into original research. If this collaboration was to be about miltitary executions or wartime atrocities (or what else... mob hits?), that should have been nominated, not "execution (legal)", which just means capital punishment. How is something called "execution (legal)" supposed to be about "[e]xecutions that take place outside public legal juristriction".--Pharos 29 June 2005 20:47 (UTC)

Military service (2 votes in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated on 28 June 2005 12:51 (UTC); needs 5 votes by 5 July.

Big and poor surprise. For some good ideas on expansion see article's talk page. - Darwinek 28 June 2005 12:53 (UTC)

Support:

  1. Darwinek 28 June 2005 12:51 (UTC)
  2. Falphin 4 July 2005 14:48 (UTC)

Border dispute (3 votes in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated on June 29, 2005 11:11 (UTC); needs 5 votes by July 6.
  • There's no separate article on this topic, which is as old as humanity itself. KNewman June 29, 2005 11:12 (UTC)

Support:

  1. KNewman June 29, 2005 11:11 (UTC)
  2. 500LL June 29, 2005 19:15 (UTC)
  3. Juppiter 30 June 2005 03:16 (UTC)

Comments:

  • I've just found an article called Territorial dispute. I think border dispute and territorial dispute mean pretty much the same thing. What do you guys think? KNewman July 1, 2005 19:22 (UTC)
    • I would agree that they are the same thing. Territorial dispute has a lot of material which is redundant with various lists. (I've tagged it to this effect.) -- Beland 2 July 2005 21:29 (UTC)
It seems to me border dispute is the same type of disagreement only the usage of the term is more limited. Territorial disputes not only include border matters but also disagreements over control of islands and waterways. I vote for redirecting, but also adding this usage note to the territorial dispute page. lots of issues | leave me a message 4 July 2005 00:23 (UTC)
      • As I had the very same idea independently, and others clearly don't always make this relevant distinction, but the nomination got forgotten since june, I've taken action Fastifex 05:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Renovation (1 vote in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated on 28 June 2005; needs 5 votes by 5 July 2005.

Big topic, little article, and sure to be fun!

Support:

  1. ℬastique▼talk 29 June 2005 18:25 (UTC)

Support:

  • I agree that it is a pathetic article but I what could be added to it. I would probably vote for it with a general idea. Falphin 29 June 2005 20:40 (UTC)

Pogs (2 votes in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated on 30 June 2005 03:28 (UTC); needs 5 votes by July 6.

Support:

  1. Juppiter 30 June 2005 03:28 (UTC)
  2. ZeWrestler 1 July 2005 16:14 (UTC)

Comments

  • I'm sure we all remember these things. If they were that important to us 15 years ago, they deserve a good article now. --Juppiter 30 June 2005 03:28 (UTC)


World Heritage Site (8 votes in 2 weeks)[edit]

Nominated June 21, 2005; Needs 10 votes by July 5, 2005

Support:

  1. Falphin 13:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. 500LL 21:06, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Stbalbach 01:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  4. Darwinek 09:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  5. Mike H 16:15, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Fenice 07:57, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  7. gren 1 July 2005 04:04 (UTC)
  8. Milena July 5, 2005 11:06 (UTC)

Comments:

  • An article that has its own category but only has a couple paragraphs to describe it. Falphin 13:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I think each of the sites probably deserves its own quality article, but it's not clear to me that this article -- essentially describing a formal political designation -- really needs much more than it has. Something pretty much can't get on that list against the wishes of the host country and without having already been designated a park of some kind. --Dhartung | Talk 21:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I believe it would be useful to how a site is nominated, the founding of it, recent news, and perhaps an overview of the first couple selected ones. Falphin 21:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Collaboration_of_the_week/Removed/2005/Archive_7&oldid=1142540296"