Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week/Removed/2005/Archive 6

< Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week‎ | Removed‎ | 2005

Independence movement of Ryukyu (1 anon vote in 7 days) edit

Nominated April 17 2005; needed 5 votes by 24 April 2005

Support:

  1. 202.64.193.247 08:58, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments: translation from Chinese version of zh:琉球復國運動

  • You should ask for translation here. --Eleassar777 10:15, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fiat (1 vote in 7 days) edit

Nominated April 21 2005; needed 5 votes by April 28 2005

Support:

  1. Burgundavia 09:00, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Not a stub. It could use improvement, but it's beyond the help of amateurs, so a poor COTW nominee. --Dhartung | Talk 18:29, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Modern literature (7 votes in 14 days) edit

Nominated April 13 2005; needed 10 votes by April 27 2005

Support:

  1. pie4all88 01:20, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. Bremen 01:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. bainer 08:41, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. Leyanese 15:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. Tothebarricades.tk 18:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. Ganymead 00:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. JHMM13 18:26, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

Folding clothes (6 votes in 2 weeks) edit

Nominated April 15 2005; needed 10 votes by April 30 2005

Support:

  1. AllyUnion (talk) 11:42, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. Litefantastic 16:46, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Puget Sound 18:38, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. Warofdreams 14:49, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oldak Quill 17:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. Ganymead 01:00, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • The title may need to be changed, but the idea I got is that so many people fold their clothing in so many different ways. Whether it is from T-shirts, to long sleeves, to underwear, to shorts, to pants, etc... Different cultures and different people fold their clothes differently. I'm uncertain how well this can be an encyclopedic article... since it seems more instructional than anything... -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:42, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Strongly object. It's as encyclopedic, as the Military history of toilet paper holder (even though it was an April Fool's Day joke :)). But again, let's wait and see how other people react to this. KNewman 15:37, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
    It's absolutely wikipedia-worthy, I just don't feel it's COTW worthy Juppiter 18:51, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    The Wikipedia reachs all walks of life... and I suppose many collaboration of the week editors are a fraction of that representation. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:36, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    I strongly object to all objections on COTW. This is approval voting. If it's a bad nomination, it won't win. If it gets the most votes it deserves to win, regardless of your "objections". --Dmcdevit 23:07, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    I object to your objecting to objections. When it doesn't pass, the proposer will know why Juppiter 04:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    Hah! I guess that came out a little more mocking than I had intended. What I mean is objecting is an inherently confrontational and disruptive way to voice opinions (that's not how COTW works). Voicing concerns is an important way to help voters can decide, and nominators correct. But objections are obstructive. --Dmcdevit 06:45, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Heck, I like it. When you get right down to it, how you fold your shirts is really a kind of meme; this has potential; I'll give it that. -Litefantastic 16:46, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Why not. House numbering is also a topic not found in other reference works, but a decent article has emerged nonetheless. Warofdreams 14:49, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think this subject is notable enough to be COTW, although certainly could be expanded. -- Tony Jin | (talk) 04:05, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

African cuisine (7 votes in 2 weeks) edit

Nominated April 16 2005; needed 10 votes by April 30 2005

Support:

  1. Darwinek 16:08, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. Mondhir 21:45, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Burgundavia 04:25, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Ganymead 18:14, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. --Bhadani 17:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. Dhartung | Talk 18:41, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. SteveW | Talk 23:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • It's a damn shame. -- Darwinek 16:08, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Isn't the correct naming convention Cuisine of Africa? --Dmcdevit 18:06, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • The request for the article had come as a 'requested article' and I just lifted that name, and commenced the work. I have been working on this for sometime. In case the name does not conform to correct naming convention, the name can be changed and the contents may be transferred to the newly named article.--Bhadani 17:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • The naming conventions for cuisine seem to be a mishmash with US and mexican using "of" and British and French using the adjective. I think the standard should be "of" but on the other hand in general speech people say mexian food not food of mexico. BrokenSegue 03:58, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, one of the problems with the naming convention is that it's not necessarily what people say. After all, people say American culture, not culture of the United States. Not that I'm helping anything here... --Dmcdevit 04:39, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • How the heck can there be ONE cuisine for a whole huge continent? It's like talking about Asian cuisine ... when Indian and Chinese and Japanese food, frex, are very very different. It's like the old science fiction writers' joke -- "It was raining on planet Mongo". Call it cuisines of Africa and then set up sub-pages for the various kinds. I'm not sure that the kinds will be neatly confined by national boundaries, BTW. Kinds: North African? Ethiopian? Rain forest? Bushman? Afrikaans? I dunno. Zora 04:22, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm interested to hear where it says that one cuisine exists, and I'll fix it. --Dmcdevit 04:39, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Yeah, I see African cuisine or Cuisine of Africa (my preference) as encompassing all regional cuisines. For instance, there are definitely regional cuisines with non-trivial differentiation within the United States or even France and Italy. --Dhartung | Talk 18:41, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Great, name of the article as well as the contents of the article are getting a lot of interest. Please see the article's talk page also. --Bhadani 09:07, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • This should be modelled after Cuisine of Asia - it should be a base page with a list of links for other cuisine pages, such as Cuisine of Ethiopia, etc. I don't see the value in consolidating this information one page, unless there is general information that encompasses African cuisine as a whole. As it stands, there is nothing of that sort in the article now (information like "Traditionally, cuisine of Africa uses a combination of locally available fruits and vegetables, milk and meat products. . " doesn't count, since it is true of pretty much any cuisine, with a handful of exceptions). Jun-Dai 05:55, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Agreed. The content that would go into a page on "African Cuisine" should be put into pages on the cuisine for each country, or at the least each region. -Rjhatl 11:21, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reproduction (3 votes in 1 week) edit

Nominated April 22 2005; needed 5 votes by April 29 2005

Support:

  1. Mikkalai 18:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. --Zxcvbnm 23:10, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ganymead 01:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments: As of the moment of nomination, a chaotic disambig-kind of page (I will clean this up). Sexual reproduction and asexual reproduction are mere redirects there. A surprisingly undercovered topic, not to be confused with sex. Also, most probably it should be renamed into Biological reproduction or Reproduction (biology). Mikkalai 18:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Culture of Russia (12 votes in 3 weeks) edit

Nominated April 9 2005; needed 15 votes by April 30 2005

Support:

  1. Circeus 23:42, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Eleassar777 23:48, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. KNewman 02:27, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Melaen 19:36, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. Comrade Tassadar 00:26, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. Mondhir 22:10, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. Ganymead 02:43, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  8. Pyromonkeykw 11:09, 17 Apr 2005
  9. Mihoshi 22:12, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  10. Junes 09:57, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  11. Zscout370 15:21, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • A former nomination that received a high number of votes. Circeus 23:42, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • I will gladly vote for this one, because it was very difficult for me to do Culture of Ancient Rus all by myself. KNewman 02:27, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Consequences of the Rwandan Genocide (8 votes in 2 weeks) edit

Nominated April 17 2005; needed 10 votes by May 1 2005

Support:

  1. Dmcdevit 17:57, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. Jelloyeti 18:03, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Junes 09:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. AndyL 16:42, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. Warofdreams 10:01, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. Ganymead 01:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. Slof 21:31, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  8. BanyanTree 16:22, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Apparently the importantstub tag doesn't really gain any attention for an article. I think we could consider this one of the most neglected (actually missing) articles among Wikipedia's most important topics. Right now it's only headings. This is a very important topic, considering not only the incalculable devastation upon the millions of victims, but also its impact on the conflicts in neighboring Burundi and Congo, and its impact on the UN and the international community. We need some kind of an article here. --Dmcdevit 17:57, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I see the importance of the article, but I'm leery of such a heavily plotted-out structure for a COTW. Looks like someone already has an editorial program worked out and abandoned it. Makes it harder for people to work within, I'd think, especially given the organic and web-based approach that COTW teams use. So I have my doubts as to how this will work. --Dhartung | Talk 08:27, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • It may look daunting, but we do not need to follow the structure. After all, you never know what it's going to look like until we write it anyway. --Dmcdevit 00:05, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I've turned one list of section headings into prose - some are unsuitable as section headings anyway. Warofdreams 10:01, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Geography of Brazil (1 vote in 1 week) edit

Nominated April 25 2005; needed 5 votes by May 2 2005

Support:

  1. Ganymead 20:21, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Brazil has some of the most interesting and important georgraphical features in South America including the Amazon Basin. Very stubbish and in need of a great deal of work. Ganymead 20:26, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • An article that should be done; but it should be done by a few people who know Brazil, which I don't. Is the herd approach of COTW the way for this one? Septentrionalis 16:19, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I strongly think not. This article looks the way many COTW winners look after the herd's done. :-S Try the [Wikipedia:Article improvement drive|Article improvement drive] instead. --Dhartung | Talk 18:05, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cornelius_Lanczos (2 votes in 1 week) edit

Nominated April 26 2005; needed 5 votes by May 2 2005

Support:

  1. kris 02:13, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. Wragge 09:39, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC) - There's nothing there at the moment. Shouldn't we add as much as possible before the COTW starts?

Comments: Cornelius Lanczos was an important mathematician (he developed the Fast Fourier Transform among other things) and physicist (worked on relativity and communicated with Einstein) and a brilliant writer (his books are marvels of clarity).

He was Jewish, born in Hungary and changed his name due to anti-German sentiments in Hungary, and ended up working in the United States for Boeing on numerical methods in the 1950's

The history of his life is interesting, besides being historically significant in both the fields of physics and mathematics.

South America (8 votes in 2 weeks) edit

Nominated April 18 2005; needed 10 votes by May 2 2005

Support:

  1. Gavin 21:35, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Junes 09:48, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. --Wonderfool t(c)e) 14:17, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. —thames 00:23, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. gadfium 23:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. --Newnoise 17:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. --Zxcvbnm 23:13, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  8. RexNL 23:50, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments: Very essential article about a very essential area of our world. -- Gavin 21:35, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • That's in pretty bad shape (compare it with Europe for instance). Junes 09:48, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • It sucks. And it being a bit more than a stub can be ignored. Mongol Empire made it to COTW status without being a stub (However, my use of sockpuppetting did help its cause considerably) --Wonderfool t(c)e) 14:17, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • 267 words definitely qualifes in my book. If I remember correctly ME was much longer. --Dmcdevit 00:27, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oceania, North America, and Australasia are not much better, too... --Dmcdevit 00:33, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Maria Lionza (1 vote in 1 week) edit

Nominated April 26 2005; needed 5 votes by May 3 2005

Support:

  1. Stancel

Comments:

  • Very interesting topic about something very few in the world know about. I found out about this while researching Venezuela for a research paper. I created the article and this is all I have so far. I would love it if others could help me with the research. There is a good resource I put in the "Sources" section called "A Girardian reading of the myth of Maria Lionza" that will provide much for the article. Please put your name under "Support"! - Stancel April 26, 2005 17:18 (UTC)

Velvet Revolution (4 votes in 1 week) edit

Nominated April 27 2005; needed 5 votes by May 5 2005

Support:

  1. Ambi 07:29, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. --Newnoise 17:18, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) Cos Ambi is very nice. And i like the feel of velvet on my body
  3. Juppiter 02:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. Rjhatl 11:28, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Pitiful stub on a fairly important event in recent history. Ambi 07:29, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I was going to start working on it, but someone else has improved it immensely since nomination. --Dhartung | Talk 05:54, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a lot more informative than it was initially, but it's still mostly in timeline form, and I think a lot more could be done with it given the chance (and at least one more vote within the next day or two). Ambi 07:24, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear engineering (4 votes in 1 week) edit

Nominated April 29 2005; needed 5 votes by May 6 2005

Support:

  1. — oo64eva (AJ) (U | T | C) @ 13:55, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
  2. JHMM13 14:03, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
  3. 500LL 17:01, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Dalf | Talk 23:46, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Of course you choose this article on my final exam week... the week I'm not editing. Oh the irony. — oo64eva (AJ) (U | T | C) @ 13:55, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • With the large background on supporting literature, it is a shame that this entry is in the shape it is.
  • It's not a bad start, but it reads more like a course catalog than an encyclopedic entry on a professional discipline. I fixed the formatting, which at least makes it look less amateurish. --Dhartung | Talk 08:24, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Singer (4 votes in 1 week) edit

Nominated April 30 2005; needed 5 votes by May 7 2005

Support:

  1. Ganymead 22:14, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 23:04, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. RexNL 22:37, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Burgundavia 01:01, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Comments: Linked to from over 1200 articles. -- Beland 19:57, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Civil rights (1 vote in 1 week) edit

Nominated May 1 2005; needed 5 votes by May 8 2005

Support:

  1. Stancel 12:05, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Comments:

  • A very short article on something VERY important. - Stancel 12:06, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a short article, and it is important, and it should be longer, but it is not short enough to meet the requirements of stub or, therefore, a COTW. Either that, or the criteria for COTW need reforming. In the meantime, perhaps Wikipedia:Cleanup? Jun-Dai 16:06, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I nominated it to WP:AID, which is for longer articles in need of collaboration. -- Beland 01:21, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's brief but too long for COTW. As I typically note, this is what they look like after a COTW. An article like this is in need of expert help for further improvement toward Featured status. Don't overlook Wikipedia:Peer review. --Dhartung | Talk 05:46, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet Fronts in WWII (1 vote in 1 week) edit

Nominated May 2 2005; needed 5 votes by May 9 2005

Support:

  1. KNewman 16:59, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Just a list of red links. If this one goes well, we could then expand on German Army Groups in WWII. KNewman 16:59, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Hasn't this been through here already under a slightly different title? See archive. — RJH 22:24, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe it has been nominated before. I think it was called Front (Soviet Army) or something like that. There were no fronts in it, however. KNewman 12:40, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • This isn't a potential article; this should be named List of Soviet Fronts in WWII. That said, the bit about fronts & army groups should be further clarified. --Dhartung | Talk 05:48, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you think it would be better to nominate each front separately? KNewman 12:40, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
      • Given the esoteric subject matter, I just don't think this is a good COTW candidate. Give us a battle and we're good, but this is basically military trivia. --Dhartung | Talk 10:44, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Basque nationalism (6 votes in 2 weeks) edit

Nominated April 26 2005; needed 10 votes by May 10 2005

Support:

  1. Burgundavia 08:19, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Idiazabal 12:05, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ganymead 00:57, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. Rjhatl 11:27, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. Eigenwijze mustang 22:44, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. MPS 18:59, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: A major topic with a long history. Burgundavia 08:19, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Today we conmemorate the destruction of Guernica.Idiazabal 12:05, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Spice trade (12 votes in 3 weeks) edit

Nominated April 18, 2005; needed 15 votes by May 9, 2005

Support:

  1. Burgundavia 09:53, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Tony Jin | (talk) 00:11, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Eleassar777 06:39, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. Junes 09:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. Chris Edgemon 05:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. --Zxcvbnm 23:09, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  8. Septentrionalis 16:16, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  9. --Eigenwijze mustang 22:43, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. KTC 17:03, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Dalf | Talk 07:41, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Sean WI 20:16, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Hugely important historical topic, and it's a tiny stub (unless someone's turned it into a trade directory again as it was before I edited it--194.73.130.132 09:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article could also include description of salt routes, that were nominated as a separate article some time ago. --Eleassar777 06:39, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
And trade is little better. I believe I did propose it for CoTW long, long time ago, but it failed...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:25, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Civilian control of the military (1 vote in 1 week) edit

Nominated May 3 2005; needed 5 votes by May 10 2005

Support:

  1. Beland 02:09, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • This seems like an important democracy-and-government topic which has no coverage so far. -- Beland 02:09, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest Civilian control of the military in the U.S to avoid confusion; too often American readers take for granted that what is peculiarly an American system holds true for the rest of the world. Nobs 19:51, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I know, there are other countries outside the U.S. that have civilian control of the military. I think it's an important topic in it's own right, not simply in one of its applications in one particular country (the U.S. for instance). —thames 01:19, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

People (2 votes in 1 week) edit

Nominated May 4 2005; needed 5 votes by May 11 2005

Support:

  1. Darwinek 19:29, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. WB 01:39, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Another shame here on Wikipedia. -- Darwinek 19:29, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't this be merged with Humans? KNewman 19:54, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • If there's a reason why this needs a separate article from Human, I don't know what it is. Jun-Dai 01:33, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps the best thing would be to merge the contents of this article with "human" and "nation" and then transform it into a disambiguation page. This page would also include links to People (magazine) and surat "an-Nas" (The People) in the Qur'an. Ok? --Eleassar777 07:51, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we should keep it real and merge it with human and also make a disambig to surat an-Nas and People magazine. -- Darwinek 17:46, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably you're right, according to what people usually expect to find searching for "people". --Eleassar777 18:30, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History of democracy (12 votes in 3 weeks) edit

Nominated April 22 2005; needed 15 votes by May 13 2005

Support:

  1. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:41, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. —thames 21:31, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Pyromonkeykw 8:39, 24 Apr 2005
  4. Dhartung | Talk 18:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. Nobs 02:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. Ganymead 20:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. --D. Franklin 09:19, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
  8. --Zxcvbnm 23:08, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  9. Bremen 15:07, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  10. JHMM13 14:10, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
  11. Pharos 01:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. --Melaen 13:47, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • An extremly important subject - history (or development, evolution, etc.) of the democracy - a dominat political system of our current day - which is not covered on Wiki AT ALL, since the democracy article doesn't even have a 'history' section! Note that democratic movement is a double redirect into politics article as well. Basically, if anybody would be looking for an answer 'how did democracy came around' on Wiki he would came with nothing at all! Considering the size of Wiki, our excellent (or, at least, huge) coverage of things like communism, it is an enormous - and amazing - hole, which I believe we must fix ASAP. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:41, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah there's a lot of material here, not just looking back to the ancient Greeks, but looking at democracy's gradual reemergence: baron's limiting the king's power, the magna carta, the treaty of westphalia, the reformation, the enlightenment, "waves" of democracy since the american and french revolutions, and democratic elements in non-western cultures (intra-tribal democratic groups) and colonially-imposed democracies.
  • Some of this is already covered in articles on people like John Locke and round-ups like Political philosophy (which is basically written from a democratic POV), but there should be something separate. Some discussion of Francis Fukuyama and Samuel Huntington would seem advised for the end-section. --Dhartung | Talk 18:35, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • <Jun-Dai 07:01, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)> Whether Democracy is really a dominant political system of our day, or whether there is simply a smattering of a watered-down version of it here and there in the world is a matter of much debate. More importantly, I think this article should be begun as a section of Democracy, and then expanded to a new article as the material develops. It would be better if it were tied into Democracy as a main article, since the "history of Democracy" is greatly dependent on what one defines as Democracy in the first place. </Jun-Dai>
  • This will be the COTW soon, no problem. Bremen 15:07, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I've just added a link to Athenian democracy as a start. KNewman 21:08, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Military (7 votes in 2 weeks) edit

Nominated April 30 2005; needed 10 votes by May 14 2005

Support:

  1. BanyanTree 16:28, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Phlebas 22:55, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --maayan 11:56, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Burgundavia 01:00, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
  5. RexNL 18:50, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wonderfool t(c)e)
  7. This really needs work... Rmrfstar 14:51, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Linked to from over 800 articles. -- Beland 19:57, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Environmental movement (4 votes in 1 week) edit

Nominated May 10 2005; needed 5 votes by May 17 2005

Support:

  1. Erauch 15:10, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Taka 17:41, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Ben please vote! 05:52, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Sentience 02:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: This important topic, linked to from over 700 articles, has a skimpy article whose prose leaves much to be desired. Also, it needs to be much more global. --Erauch 15:10, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Facial symmetry (3 votes in 1 week) edit

Nominated May 10 2005; needed 5 votes by May 17 2005

Support:

  1. KNewman 19:33, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Carolaman 00:04, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sam Spade 14:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Judging by the amount of actual voters, it appears that people here are bored with history, geography, and politics. May I suggest something different? It may happen that this COTW won't even get any votes :), but hey we need a change of subject every once in a while. KNewman 19:33, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Do you mean an article about facial symmetry and physical attractiveness? By searching in google for "facial symmetry" nearly everything seemed to be about the influence of facial symmetry on attractiveness, e.g.
http://www.uni-regensburg.de/Fakultaeten/phil_Fak_II/Psychologie/Psy_II/beautycheck/english/symmetrie/symmetrie.htm
http://www.usc.edu/CSSF/History/2003/Projects/S0324.pdf
A better title might therefore be Facial symmetry and attractiveness. Ben please vote! 05:42, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • I believe, this was exactly the article where I found 'facial symmetry' (phys. attaractiveness, I mean). KNewman 11:11, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Montevideo (7 votes in 2 weks) edit

Nominated May 5 2005; needed 10 votes by May 18 2005

Support:

  1. Stancel 18:26, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Falphin 22:58, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. WB 01:36, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
  4. gadfium 00:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 21:21, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Grunners 21:02, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. NatusRoma 21:01, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • It is an absolute SHAME that this article is so short. This is the capital of Uruguay and certainly needs to be a longer article. Compare this with [[Bogot%E1]], the capital of Colombia and you'll see what I mean. Overall, South American capitals seem to be ignored by many. -- Stancel 18:26, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The English article is longer that its corresponding Spanish article. — J3ff 08:58, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The English Wikipedia is gobs larger than its corresponding Spanish Wikipedia. --Dmcdevit 01:48, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Independence (1 vote in 1 week) edit

Nominated May 12 2005; needs 5 votes by May 19 2005

Support:

  1. Wonderfool t(c)e) 11:15, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Brain implant (1 vote in 1 week) edit

Nominated May 16 2005; needed 5 votes by May 23 2005

Support:

  1. Ben talk contr 11:35, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Comments: I'm reading a lot in wikipedia. Articles I like best are about future developments. Surprisingly, ever again, I find it very limited for neuroscience (which might be connected to wikipedia's systemic bias). If you look at earlier collaborations of the week you will find that many of them were about history and culture. Why not have one about future history=futurology=brain implants?

There are many articles on the net that just wait to be included in the article, several fascinating books (one is online), and links to many other promising articles still in red. Please vote here and let's extend brain implants and try to make it a featured article! Ben talk contr 11:35, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

American Industrial Revolution (3 votes in 1 week) edit

Nominated May 14 2005; needed 5 votes by May 21 2005

Support:

  1. Falphin 21:54, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --The Anachronism 00:19, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Fenice 06:38, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • The American Industrial was a major even in American history and I can't find any article of it on wikipedia. Perhaps if this is successful I will also eventually nominate the German, French, Russian,Japanese, and Chinese revolutions.
  • What really needs work is Economic history of the United States that only begins at WWI. - SimonP 23:56, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • There is already an Industrial Revolution article and information about it's impact in the United States can be added there. Stancel 15:41, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not exactly, the American Industrial Revolution did not take place with the British which is what the first one refers to. It took place alongside the German(#2) however they were very different so I think it deserves its own article. For example the American took place accross vass territory and resources and was based upon immigration. The German was more based upon trade and focused on the military to achieve it. If that makes since. Also I believe there is enough information about the industrialisation of America to make it a featured article. I don't know as much about the other industrial revolutions that took place Falphin 21:27, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The repercussions of the Industrial Revolution for America, as well as England, should be discussed.

Economy of England (2 votes in 1 week) edit

Nominated May 15 2005; needed 5 votes by May 22 2005

Support:

  1. Grunners 20:59, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Joolz 20:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Previously just a redirect to Economy of the United Kingdom, in the unfortunate American fashion of assuming England, Great Britain and the United Kingdom to be the same thing. As the largest economy by far of the UK, and including London, the world's foremost financial centre, this article deserves a lot of support. Grunners 20:59, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be fair, the redirect was probably put in place because the article was actually [incorrectly] about the economy of the UK and not England, besides that, I'm happy to support this ;p -- Joolz 20:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Culture of Russia (8 votes in 2 weeks) edit

Nominated May 10 2005; needed 10 votes by May 24 2005

Support:

  1. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 01:01, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  2. olivier 12:06, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Pyromonkeykw 20:52, May 14, 2005
  4. KNewman 13:50, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Falphin 02:27, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Phoenix2 17:54, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Fenice 06:42, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cheesycow5 16:18, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Tiny Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 01:01, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • It's already been a COTW a couple of weeks ago. A bunch of people voted for it, including me, but nothing happened. The article remained the same. Do you think we should try again? KNewman 02:19, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
      • I saw the page was sparse, and went looking through the archives for that with the most votes and that was still a stub, to bring forward again. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 06:41, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Dan Gable (3 votes in 1 week) edit

Nominated May 17 2005; needed 5 votes by May 24 2005

Support:

  1. ZeWrestler 17:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Gantry 17:56, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. User:Stilgar135 22:45, 22 May 2005

Comments:

  • One of the most well known wrestlers in all of Sport wrestling. He has contributed so much to the sport, yet there is not much written about him on the site. Even in his retirement from wrestling, he still is active, seeking ways to help young wrestlers achieve their maxium potential. As a change of pace from History Articals, how about this artical about him. I have searched in the past and there is a large amount of information about him on the internet, and even sources that can be found at the public libraries. -- ZeWrestler 17:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apistogramma (1 vote in 1 week) edit

Nominated May 19 2005; needed 5 votes by May 26 2005

Support:

  1. Robin klein 20:54, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • People are likely to have photographs of this species of fish and lots of information. Some how the article is just a stub till now. This article could benefit tremendously with collaborative inputs. Robin klein 20:54, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Software engineering (May 27) edit

Nominated May 20 2005; needed 5 votes by May 27 2005

Support:

  1. Hans-AC ✉ 18:06, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wouter Lievens 16:07, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. WB 23:22, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Comments: Software engineering should be a start page for all articles concerning with tthe topic and an introductory article for the WikiReader Software Engineering. Simultaneously, I propose a German collaboration (Qualitätsoffensive). --Hans-AC ✉ 18:06, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am semi confused as about what you are doing here. What exactly is the COTW supposed to do with the artical that seems extremly developed already? Wouldn't something like this belong to the Article improvemet drive? If you can explain better why this artical should be COTW, I'll vote for it. --ZeWrestler 18:17, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. I'll write down some missing topics of the article tomorrow and I will think about article improvementdrive. --Hans-AC ✉ 18:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot is done already though. I support nevertheless. WB 23:22, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • The article has many problems. It currently reads like a position paper from an advocacy group. It is full of vacuous statements such as "Software generally needs to be reliable" and "Without project management, software projects can easily be delivered late or over budget." Some of it seems puffed up with its own sense of self-importance. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I haven't had anny time to work on the topic before today. - ZeWrestler: You are right: the article is nothing for Collaboration of the week but for Article improvement drive. Sorry again, I did not obeye the rule, only nominate articles which don't currently exist or are stubs. Thanks for all proposals. Please have a look at Article improvement drive: Software engineering.

Airbase (May 27) edit

Nominated May 20 2005; needed 5 votes by May 27 2005

Suport

  1. Falphin 20:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Phoenix2 22:50, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coments:

  • This article is pathetic. First of all it has no history section which could easily reach 30kb. Secondly it hardly describes aircraft carriers.(which is a huge article) Thirdly it doesn't mention the military airbases in the United States, GB, France etc. Falphin 20:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with you, this is a pathetic article. Phoenix2 22:50, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perry monument (May 28) edit

Nominated May 21 2005; needs 5 votes by May 28 2005

Support:

  1. Cheesycow5 19:15, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • This is a very historic monument that deserves a nice article. Cheesycow5 19:15, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • A historic monument indeed and I'm sure it deserves a good article, as do many articles. But is it worthy of Collaboration of the Week? Stancel 23:52, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see this being a very good choice of COTW. There are many more important articles out there. Robinoke 13:24, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Culture of Afghanistan(May 29) edit

Nominated May 22 2005; needs 5 votes by May 29 2005

Support:

  1. Revolución 00:21, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fenice 06:43, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 08:27, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  4. gren 17:32, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • It's done so well thanks to the work of User:Falphin in the past few days, I dont think it needs COTW anymore. I was going to vote for it as an important topic before, but I wouldnt have been able to contribute much. Maybe Peer Review now or something. Robinoke 13:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Serf (May 31) (8 votes in 2 weeks) edit

Nominated May 17 2005; needs 10 votes by May 31 2005

Support:

  1. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. NatusRoma 21:53, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Ben please vote! 05:52, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  4. ZeWrestler 18:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jeltz talk 08:16, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Junes 09:45, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Fenice 06:42, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. mikka (t) 21:32, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Transnational political party (2 votes in 1 week) edit

Nominated May 26 2005; needs 5 votes by June 2 2005

Support:

  1. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Zora 05:23, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Political parties organising in more than one country is a unusual phenonemon, an article on this would highlight this strange occurrence! Talrias (t | e | c) 18:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose it depends on your definition of "party". Green Party, sure. Possibly Muslim Brotherhood, though dunno if you'd consider that a party. Various "national liberation" parties, with bases overseas (IRA, etc.). BJP raises money in the US and UK, I believe. Are Libertarians global? Would it be original research to just throw up an outline and see what various folks could contribute? Zora 05:23, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Early 2000s recession (4 votes in 1 week) edit

Nominated May 28 2005; needs 5 votes by June 4 2005

Support:

  1. Juppiter 00:06, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Dhartung | Talk 20:41, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Junes 12:26, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Fenice 06:41, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

Papua New Guinea (3 votes in 1 week) edit

Nominated May 29 2005; Needs 5 votes by June 5 2005

Support:

  1. User:Taylorr, 10:38, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Barfooz (talk) 05:48, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Cyberjunkie 05:56, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Interesting country, needs more work, many will enjoy the article, so vote for it.
  • This article is a candidate for the article improvement drive. Phoenix2 14:56, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a stub (COTW requirement). Vote for the AID nomination instead. --Dhartung | Talk 20:51, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Express Mail (3 votes in 1 week) edit

Nominated May 30 2005; Needs 5 votes by June 6 2005

Support:

  1. KNewman 20:19, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Falphin 02:29, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. Fenice 06:44, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • I found this one in red while reading the Mail article. Maybe, it's already written, but I couldn't find anything. If there is an article on Express mail, please remove this nomination. KNewman 20:19, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • The closest thing out there seems to be courier (e.g. FedEx is an overnight courier). --Dhartung | Talk 07:44, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • What should this article include. I will try to start it once I have the time but I need ideas. Falphin 03:16, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Express Mail is a registered trademark of the U.S. Postal Service to refer to one of its products. A better generic term is overnight courier or overnight delivery service. I will add an article reflecting as much. Massysett 03:26, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've started express mail (different from above), which serves its purpose as a starting point. I disagree with other title proposals. Sucks for you USPS that you trademarked a brand that has become indistinugishable from the name of the industry. lots of issues | leave me a message 04:43, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Henry Fonda (8 votes in 2 weeks) edit

Nominated May 26 2005; needs 10 votes by June 9 2005

Support:

  1. A Link to the Past 07:34, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Carolaman 01:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ℬastique▼talk 03:14, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Blue Slime 04:36, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jerec 22:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  6. Sean Curtin 07:55, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Mike H 19:04, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  8. ike9898 19:27, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • While this may not be as important as The Roaring 20's, the man turned 100, and all he has to show for it is 75% of a Wikipedia Article listing movies he's been in! -- A Link to the Past 07:34, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Violence (4 votes in 1 week) edit

Nominated June 4 2005;Needs 5 votes by June 11, 2005

Support

  1. ZeWrestler 02:17, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. Fenice 06:55, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. Dhartung | Talk 23:35, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  4. Niz 01:13, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments - While searching for a potential COTW canidate that was not a history related artical, stumbled accross this artical. I found that on the page Wikipedia:Most wanted stubs this artical was listed on their main list for being fixed up. According to this list, 275 articles on wikipedia link to this artical. Updates have been made to this artical, but in general, it is still a language stub. The artical contains a few small paragraphs on top, with a giant list of "see also's" and "external links". I believe this can easily be fixed up by serveral of the members on this site, expecially, if it is made into a COTW. ZeWrestler 02:17, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Interesting stub (the list doesn't really count). I imagine this could be expanded to cover philosophy of violence, psychology of violence and social consequences among other areas. --Dhartung | Talk 23:35, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • exactly, so much can be done with this stub if it is made into the COTW. --ZeWrestler 05:07, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Transnationalism (12 votes in 3 weeks) edit

Nominated May 21 2005; needs 15 votes by June 11 2005

Support:

  1. Sarge Baldy 17:50, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Phoenix2 17:52, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. —thames 18:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Zora 18:52, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Robin klein 03:38, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wragge 17:41, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
  7. Wonderfool t(c)e)
  8. Jeff8765 15:47, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
  9. EatAlbertaBeef 22:09, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  10. Talrias (t | e | c) 23:15, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  11. SecretAgent 00:38, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  12. Fenice 11:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • An important concept with 111,000 hits on google but still without an article. Transnationalism is growing throughout the world because of its viability now with modern communications, and of course increasing levels of globalization. Sarge Baldy 17:50, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Ties in with other subjects, like epistemic communities, "davos culture," functionalism, the dilution of sovereignty and decline of westphalia, origins with earlier cosmopolitan movements, etc. —thames 18:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose I'm a transnationalist. I've been describing myself as an ecumenical Bundist. I spit on ALL your flags! Zora 06:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wrote a short introduction on Transnationalism. I hope more people vote for this its extremelly important and effects everyone.--EatAlbertaBeef 22:20, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

AFL-CIO (6 votes in 2 weeks) edit

Nominated May 29 2005; needs 10 votes by June 12 2005

Support:

  1. Tothebarricades.tk 07:08, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 14:25, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Newbie222 18:41, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  4. Revolución 23:08, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  5. Fenice 06:42, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  6. Warofdreams 14:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Needs a LOT of expansion Pathetic. I'll see what I can do. --Tothebarricades.tk 07:08, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Was a nominee last autumn - not that that stops it being nominated again. The previous nomination obtained 19 votes in 5 weeks. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:41, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jungle (10 votes in 3 weeks) edit

Nominated May 23 2005; Vote ended June 13 2005

Support:

  1. Gavin 17:17, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ZeWrestler 19:13, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fenice 06:44, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 08:27, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Mentality 21:08, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Phoenix2 23:34, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Lightamplification 02:57, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. RexNL 10:24, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Junes 20:20, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Mark J 14:03, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. NatusRoma 05:16, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • This one is definitely necessary.--Gavin 17:17, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being an environmentalist, i have to agree -- ZeWrestler 19:13, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely looks to short for something as potentially expansive as jungles. Not to mention it would probably be quite fun/interesting to expand upon! -- Mentality 22:08, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • We could definitely find lots of information for this article. Phoenix2 23:34, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're Kidding! The most important natural ghabitat on earth, and what do we have on it? --Mark J 14:03, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • How would this page not simply duplicate Rainforest? - SimonP 18:48, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • I believe that jungle is a broader term than rainforest. A rainforest receives >250cm of annual precipitation, leaving plenty of room for "drier" areas of dense tropical vegetation fitting the term jungle. But it is not a strict ecological term, and probably does not deserve a very large article other than to distinguish the two. So I can see some slight improvements but I won't vote for it as a COTW. --Dhartung | Talk 20:50, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should be merged with rainforest.--Fenice 08:59, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Automotive industry (6 votes in 2 weeks) edit

Nominated June 1 2005;Needs 10 votes by June 15 2005

Support

  1. Falphin 01:09, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. ℬastique▼talk 01:59, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. Dhartung | Talk 07:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  4. Fenice 06:46, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  5. lots of issues | leave me a message 04:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  6. Joolz 12:56, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • For an industry as important as the automobile it really needs to be expanded. Falphin 01:09, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • You know...I was thinking the same thing and see you already got here! I noticed this forwarded to Automaker. That makes no sense. we also need an article on Automotive History. It's crazy that we don't have these topics! ℬastique▼talk 01:59, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I changed it to Automotive industry, which is the preferred term; and Wikipedia style requires lower case in following words that are not proper nouns. Most of these industry pages are just linklists. --Dhartung | Talk 07:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

History of the automobile (5 votes in 2 weeks) edit

Nominated June 1 2005;Needs 10 votes by June 15 2005

Support

ℬastique▼talk 01:59, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  1. Falphin 02:21, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. Dhartung | Talk 18:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. Fenice 06:46, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  4. Mike H 20:53, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  5. brian0918&#153; 13:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Support for this one doesn't negate support for Automobile Industry above! We can certainly use both articles! There are quite a lot of details about Automotive History that aren't included in Automobile. ℬastique▼talk 01:59, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • agreed Falphin 02:21, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't this be History of the automobile instead (which is much of the first half of the automobile article right now)? --Dhartung | Talk 07:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I'll go along with that. There's still a great deal more information that could be included in this article. ℬastique▼talk 12:50, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • User:Sfoskett has been furiously improving this article well beyond the need for a COTW. I don't know what we can do for it now. --Dhartung | Talk 01:55, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh, what an evil, evil person. And here I thought I picked a winner... :) ℬastique▼talk 22:54, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Maybe we can move this toward featured article? ℬastique▼talk 22:55, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I really appreciate all the supportive comments I've heard regarding this article. I think it's at a stage now where it's "good enough" for an intro to such a broad topic, though of course much more detail could be added. I think we should collaborate on expanding pages relating to more granular automobile history pages - I'm going to create pages like History of the automobile in the 1920s and such, methinks. --SFoskett 23:14, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • As nominator of this, I'm officially withdrawing my vote. SFoskett has done such a fantastic job. I think it needs to be nominated for Featured Article instead. ℬastique▼talk 02:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree. The only reason I haven't withdrawn my support vote is because its not going to make it another week anyway. Falphin 22:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Buddhist mythology (8 votes in 2 weeks) edit

Nominated June 1 2005;Needs 10 votes by June 15 2005

Support

  1. Falphin 02:21, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. Revolución 23:06, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. NeoJustin 01:38, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Fenice 06:47, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  5. Newbie222 01:30, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  6. GuloGuloGulo 00:28, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Sqkvii 10:52, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  8. takahara butsu 11:22, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • I'm not sure how far this article will get in the COTW candidate selection but it is an important topic and as of now is just a redirect. Falphin 02:22, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Note:The category isn't empty but the redirect just is doing strange thingsFalphin 02:25, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Also make sure that the corresponding section, with a summary, added to the main Buddhism article. mikka (t) 19:19, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • This topic could be huge , what do u suppose we do about the 3 types of Buddhism, each have an extensive mythological base. Sqkvii 11:56, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Communication (2 votes in 1 week) edit

Nominated June 8 2005; Needs 5 votes by June 15, 2005

Support:

  1. Fenice 11:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. Newbie222 13:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • stubby, listy article on important topic--Fenice 11:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Commerce (7 votes in 2 weeks) edit

Nominated June 2 2005; Needs 10 votes by June 16 2005

Support

  1. Sean Curtin 07:52, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Fenice 06:52, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. NatusRoma 05:18, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  4. Newbie222 13:09, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  5. --T. K. Leibniz the Ineffable 13:50, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  6. Gentgeen 23:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  7. Cedars 04:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Incredible that this major topic is only a stub. -Sean Curtin 07:52, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Comedy film (5 votes in 2 weeks) edit

Nominated June 2 2005; Needs 10 votes by June 16 2005

Support

  1. Falphin 13:05, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. Dhartung | Talk 18:33, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. Fenice 06:53, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  4. RJH 21:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  5. Volatile 21:52, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • Right now it is just one huge list of comedy films and a stubby intro. The current article should probably be renamed "List of Comedy Films" 12.220.47.145 13:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC
    • Agreed a large list and no articleFalphin 13:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • This was actually a candidate for the COTW a long time ago in the second archive. Falphin 16:05, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Modified to Comedy film per Wikipedia style (there was already a redirect, though). --Dhartung | Talk 18:33, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I went ahead and split off the lists to separate pages, as is done with several other film genre articles. Very bare bones. Could almost do with starting up a movie genre improvement group. :) — RJH 21:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Removed votes

History of Australia (12 votes in 3 weeks) edit

Nominated May 27 2005; needs 15 votes by June 17 2005

Support:

  1. Falphin 15:28, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Junes 20:21, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Cyberjunkie 04:11, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Trevor macinnis 00:40, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Fenice 06:41, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  6. Newbie222 01:30, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  7. bainer (talk) 12:48, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  8. Wragge 12:57, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
  9. NatusRoma 21:05, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  10. Pjamescowie 05:40, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  11. ZeWrestler 18:03, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  12. Trevor macinnis 22:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • A very stubby introduction to the history of a very important country. Falphin 15:28, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are quite significant sub-pages to "History of Australia" but the 'parent' article remains quite minimal.--Cyberjunkie 04:13, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Portland, Oregon (Not a stub) edit

Nominated June 17, 2005; Needs 5 votes by June 24, 2005

Support:

  1. Jacob 05:06, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • This article needs to be splintered off into separate articles. It is too long. It also needs to be cleaned up in terms of content in certain sections. There is a lot of great information and this article has the potential to be Featured with some TLC. Jacob 05:06, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • This is inappropriate for COTW, which requires a stub as starting point. Go to the Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive or Wikipedia:Peer Review for overhaul of substantially complete articles. --Dhartung | Talk 06:28, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Collaboration_of_the_week/Removed/2005/Archive_6&oldid=1142533878"