Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week/Removed/2006/Archive 3

< Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week | Removed | 2006

Purge the cache to refresh this page

This page contains nominations from the main collaboration of the week page which have been removed due to lack of votes or because they're unsuitable nominations. Successful nominations are listed at the history page.

The below failed nominations should be moved to the appropriate archive:

G8

edit
nominated 12:55 March 31, 2006. Needs 20 votes by April 5.

This is an article that can be a collaboration of the week because G8 is frequently supported, and also frequently criticized.


Comments This is no stub... It should be nominated in any case in WP:AID. --Francisco Valverde 09:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camp David

edit
Nominated on 17:19, March 30, 2006. Needs 5 votes by March 31.

Camp David is so important that I nominate this article to COTW.

Support:

Comments:

Demographics of Africa

edit
Nominated on 00:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC); needs 12 votes by March 30.

We have articles fornearly all the African countries, and all of them links to it through the {{Africa in topic}} template. THere'salot to write about population movements and stuff

Support:

  1. Circeus 00:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Y Ynhockey || Talk Y 22:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 02:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Darwinek 09:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The Tom 23:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mark 13:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. PDXblazers 04:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Avala 19:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Crna tec Gora 20:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Passdoubt | Talk 08:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Montenegrin independence referendum, 2006

edit
Nominated on 23:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC); needs 9 votes by 30 March, 2006.

Process that could result in the first new country since East Timor. Stub at present, could do with more backgrounding and preparation in the leadup to the vote.

Support:

  1. The Tom 23:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   CrnaGora | Talk 00:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Ottoman Sultan | Talk 01:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 16:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Caponer 20:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   - Darwinek 16:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Roman Dictator Gaius Julius Caesar IV (aka Julius Caesar) 07:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed:

  1. 202.40.210.246 07:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Anon votes don't count. -- King of Hearts talk 17:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I wonder why the adjective form of "Montengro" is "Montenegrin" and not "Montenegran". J. Finkelstein 18:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Line-item veto

edit
Nominated on 05:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC); needs 6 votes by March 28, 2006.

This is not only a stub, but a really awful one! It is becoming important with current political events, as the president is trying to gain the right of line item veto.

Support:

  1. PDXblazers 05:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Harro5 23:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Aaronwinborn 01:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Crna tec Gora 20:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Ross (ElCharismo) 18:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Jacobean era

edit
Nominated on 01:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC); needs 6 votes by 30 March.

This article could be expanded on so much, yet it's sadly so short. If you compare it with the vastness of the Victorian Era article, the Jacobean era is weak. I plan, if this go ahead, to put a lot of time and effort into developing the article. I will, however, need others help in doing so, which is the reason I'm nominating it. It could be a large and interesting article on what is a significant period of English history.

Support:

  1. Schizmatic 01:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Caponer 17:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Crna tec Gora 04:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Mahon

edit
Nominated on 10:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC); needs 6 votes by 2 April 2006.

There is much more to Mahon than just spelling controversies. It needs more sections on its history, geography, culture, etc.

Support:

  1. Francisco Valverde 10:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Caponer 17:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Crna tec Gora 04:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Partisan (political)

edit
Nominated on 20:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC); needs 6 votes by April 2, 2006.

Important political term with only an average-sized stub article

Support:

  1. Carabinieri 20:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Crna tec Gora 04:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. St jimmy 12:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Avala 19:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Jamshedpur

edit
Nominated on 12:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by April 2, 2006.

This is an important city in India and the article could use a lot of improvement

Support:

  1. Arundhati bakshi 12:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Compasso d'oro

edit
Nominated on 06:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC); needs 6 votes by April 7.

It is a very important award in the industrial design world. I think need improvment... and there are in general poor content on design.

Support:

  1. Juan Scott 06:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 05:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. User: YankeeDoodle14

Comments:

2000s in fashion

edit
Nominated on 09:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by April 8, 2006.

This article is in an extremely bad state, much like the 1980s fashion article used to be. This now needs serious expansion and a whole rewrite, let's get this to a decent standard!

Support:

  1. Wackymacs 09:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Root cellar

edit
Nominated on 13:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC); needs 6 votes by April 9.

An important architectural need that developed differently - but concurrently-- in several cultures. Essential for the development of modern non-nomadic cultures worldwide.

Support:

  1. Davodd 13:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 20:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Ross (ElCharismo) 18:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Scottwiki 02:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. User: YankeeDoodle14

Comments:

Tower

edit
Nominated on 20:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC); needs 6 votes by 10 April 2006.

This article is one of the most important architectural articles on Wikipedia, like bridge, arch, dam, dome, etc. Unlike those articles, however, this article is currently worse than a stub: it's nothing but an overgrown list, barely any more than a disambiguation page! (The actual dab page is at Tower (disambiguation), though.) This article needs serious work as soon as possible.

Support:

  1. Silence 20:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 23:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. PDXblazers 07:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. St jimmy 13:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. King of Hearts talk 00:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Hard Tack and Coffee

edit
Nominated on 01:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by April 10.

I think that this classic Civil War book should be given more attention then it now has.

Support:

  1. YankeeDoodle14 01:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

This article is in desperate need of information on the author, the publishing, and the impact of the book.

K.A. Paul

edit
Nominated on 05:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by April 13, 2006.

I noticed a new section in the Charles Taylor article on Kilari Anand Paul. As an unusual religious figure with a large following, profiles in mainstream publications, and a significant connection to Taylor, Paul should get a moderate-sized Wikipedia article. I've created a stub. But there's more, good and bad, that needs to be added.

Support:

  1. Scottwiki 05:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Dr. Paul has been all over, seen so much and has met with just about every Third World leader one can name, as well as many within the Western world as well. He has large "charity cities" in India that helps women and orphans and has donated a lot to good causes, including relief efforts after the tsunami in Indonesia. He has been featured in many mainstream media publications such as The New Republic, The Washington Times, The New Yorker Magazine, The Houston Chronicle and the Associated Press and makes news in odd ways on a consistent basis. Some of his methods and approaches to solving "world problems" are unconventional and often rub people the wrong way, but he seems to be among the few truly committed to the cause of peace and eradicating poverty. Like him or not, Kilari Anand Paul deserves a Wikipedia article. - Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 17:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • The article as I found it yesterday seemed extremely POV, loaded with terms like "leader of a doomsday cult."

STX Lacrosse (or just STX)

edit
Nominated on 03:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by 14 April.

STX is a major lacrosse company in the United States (elsewhere too?). I recently noticed that it does not have an article. This company is very well known and deserves an article.

Support:

  1. Yarnalgo 03:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Osbus 21:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • I just found out that they were the first company to make plastic heads! I had no idea, plastic heads are used world wide, and the fact that STX started it is amazing. --Yarnalgo 02:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That proposed article name is ... uh ... definitely not in line with the WP style guide. Anyway, STX is a brand-name for both lacrosse and golf accessories. It is a brand owned by STX, LLC, a subsidiary of William T. Burnett Inc. - ether of which would be better names for this missing article. [1] - Davodd 18:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was definetly not thinking of calling the article "STX Lacrosse (or just STX)"! What i meant by that was it could be called "STX Lacrosse" or it could be called "STX". I did not know that they also make golf accessories so both of your suggestions are great. Yarnalgo 18:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Equestrianism

edit
Nominated on 05:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by 14 April.

Our article on horses is excellent, but I was surprised to find that our article on actually how to ride a horse, horsemanship aka equestrianism, is still a stub. This article should be expanded by somebody with knowledge on the subject.

Support:

  1. Lantoka 05:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Rai University

edit
Nominated on 21:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by April 14.

Apparently one of the biggest universities in India, and currently in terrible shape (even worse a few weeks ago before Jimbo asked us on IRC to expand it because a woman from the press who went there was disgusted with it; see this old version). --Rory096 21:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support:

  1. Rory096 21:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Disarmament

edit
Nominated on 05:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by April 15, 2006.

This was previously an AID nomination.[2] However, because it's a stub, I'm nominating it in COTW.

Support:

  1. Scottwiki 05:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. PDXblazers 07:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Very important topic. I absolutely support this. PDXblazers 07:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tardigrade

edit
Nominated on 06:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by 15 April.

Absolutely fascinating animals. This article has a lot of potential - just take a look at the German featured article. I think it's time we get this article up to the same standard!

Support:

  1. Mgiganteus1 06:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Some of my favorite microfauna! EncycloPetey 05:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Penthouse apartment

edit
Nominated on 13:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by 15 April.

This is an important type of house,many people live in it and much more people want to own one,but yet the article is only 4 sentences? How is this possible?

Support:

  1. Whoshiwoo 13:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Typr 11:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed vote

  1. --67.15.183.4 12:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC) (anonymous vote)[reply]

Comments:

Spoon (band)

edit
Nominated on 00:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by April 17 ,2006.

This is a well-known, influential rock band known for their creative techniques. The article doesn't do them justice.

Support:

  1. Osbus 00:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Scottwiki 01:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

1972 Nixon visit to China

edit
Nominated on 04:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by April 16.

This is a very important event that changed the history of the Cold War and has had a profound influence on the modern history of both countries. I believe that more than a single paragraph is warranted.

Support:

  1. PDXblazers 04:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Jiang 04:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Jean de Brosse

edit
Nominated on 01:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by April 17.

I think that this extremely important French General should be given more attention.

Support:

  1. YankeeDoodle14 01:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Luka Jačov 17:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Brine (company)

edit
Nominated on 19:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by April 23.

Brine is a major sporting goods company in the United States. They make lacrosse, field hockey, and soccer equipment. It is a well known company that deserves an article.

Support:

  1. Yarnalgo 19:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Many thousands of companies (perhaps hundreds of thousands) are important in one sector or another in one or more countries. Perhaps each of these companies should, ideally, have at least a stub. But I doubt that most companies should have more than a stub. In any event, I don't think that an article about a company should be a high priority, unless the company has some significance greater than its importance within a sector (e.g., prominence in the news, cultural significance, or unusually high employment). I'd recommend that Yarnalgo create the basic articles -- or longer articles, if Yarnalgo feels it is justified -- about Brine and last week's nominee STX. Yarnalgo clearly has an interest and some knowledge about these companies; who better to create the article? -Scottwiki 16:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Scottwiki, I have will do this and all ready have started an STX article. I won't put any more company articles on COTW.--Yarnalgo 22:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't want to dissuade you from putting any company articles on COTW. If you think that a company meets the criteria for COTW, then I hope that you'll nominate it. In any event, good job in starting the STX article! -Scottwiki 03:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard III (1955 film)

edit
Nominated on 09:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by 25 April.

Important British film that has little to no information on it at the moment.

Support:

  1. Thefourdotelipsis 09:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

I feel about this nomination much as I do for the nomination of the Brine company. There are many thousands of films (like many thousands of companies) that are significant -- but does every film deserve a detailed article? Ideally, perhaps, but I doubt that it's a priority unless the film is a cultural touchstone or has some other unusual importance. -Scottwiki 17:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it did use some innovative tecniques, and it was the inspiration for the Blackadder TV series Thefourdotelipsis 08:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I like Blackadder (the theme song(s) for which will now be in my head all day!), I'm not persuaded to vote in support. But, as with most subjects (including the companies), I suppose that reasonable people can disagree on this topic's suitability for COTW. -Scottwiki 16:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now, I'm not trying to convince you to support, but I just though I'd add that this film won the BAFTA award for Best Picture and Best Actor.Thefourdotelipsis 05:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hot dog stand

edit
Nominated on 21:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC); needs 9 votes by April 26.

Hot dog stands are very important in the United States. I feel they should have a much bigger article than what they currently have.

Support:

  1. Knowitall 21:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Scottwiki 22:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yarnalgo 03:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. CarabinieriTTaallkk 11:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. PDXblazers 05:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. CrossTimer 12:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. CrnaGora 02:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

I don't feel as strongly about this as compulsory education or the others I've voted for. Still, I believe it's deserving of more than a stub, even if not a lengthy article. -Scottwiki 22:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don Lapre

edit
Nominated on 23:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by April 27, 2006.

Who doesn't remember infomercial superstar Don Lapre! Oh the fond memories of him boisterously promoting some Making Money program, and more recently uber-vitamins. Is he a crook, a hero, the epitome of capitalism? Who knows, because the article is a sentence long! :)

Support:

  1. Fxer 23:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Bubble bath

edit
Nominated on 11:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC); needs 12 votes by April 29, 2006.

This is an astonishingly short article

Support:

  1. Carabinieri 11:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Scottwiki 02:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Budgiekiller 08:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Yarnalgo 03:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. PDXblazers 07:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Unixer 13:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. (^'-')^ Covington 04:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. CrossTimer 12:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. -Benbread 12:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Mazzy 15:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. CrnaGora 02:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

I doubt that it needs to be a lengthy article. But it should be more than two sentences. I haven't researched the topic; but I imagine that one could write a lively little history and description of cultural significance. Moreover, a colorful image of a bubble bath would be very soothing. :-) -Scottwiki 02:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you may have been drunk(!) to nominate this but I wholeheartedly support the inclusion of lovely picture of a bath full of bubbles. I may attempt to create one, regardless of whether this collaboration is accepted! Budgiekiller 08:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing "Bubble bath" I was a little afraid of what this world is coming to, but after looking at the article I support this nomination 100%! Yarnalgo 03:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I laughed quite loudly when I first saw this nominations. But since then, for some reason it keeps calling me and I can't help but vote for it. PDXblazers 07:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice pick, Carabinieri. We can definitely give this a major fix-up. (^'-')^ Covington 04:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I'm not sure how this article can be so short when Bubble Bath is such a large market, in the washing/bathing industry at least.

Can't resist such a charming topic. Mazzy 15:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fabales

edit
Nominated on 03:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC); needs 12 votes by May 1, 2006.

I know little about plants, and don't have much interest in them. But when 300 Wikipedia pages link to the Fabales stub, I do know that there's a problem. (It's currently # 73 on the list of most wanted stubs, and should be higher than that, since many of the higher-ranked entries are no longer stubs.) I don't feel that its Wikispecies entry[3] is sufficient to make up for it, especially since many more people use Wikipedia than Wikispecies.

Support:

  1. Scottwiki 03:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Silence 04:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --HolyRomanEmperor 17:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. User: YankeeDoodle14
  5. Davodd 02:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. RexNL 10:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --EncycloPetey 09:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Curtis Clark 16:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Thefourdotelipsis 00:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. CrnaGora 02:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

I do not undertand! First the deadline ended the 24th April, and it did not reach enough votes, (see above). Then no one removed it, and now it has a new deadline of the 1st of May. Could someone explain??? --Francisco Valverde 17:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Westlife

edit

A popular group that worth to let us make it a featured article.

Support:

  1. 百家姓之四 10:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: But it is not a stub, it's quite a long article. Why don't you send it to WP:AID. --Francisco Valverde 11:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Yarnalgo 02:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Organic compound

edit
Nominated on 20:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC); needs 6 votes by May 2, 2006.

Organic compounds are so important in biology and chemistry, yet this article is so short. So many things in this world are organic compounds. They are essential in our life. Yet, here we have a four paragraph article.

Support:

  1. TheKillerAngel 20:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Thefourdotelipsis 05:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Asterion talk to me  10:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. PDXblazers 20:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

I have taken the liberty of changing the title of this nomination from Organic Compounds to Organic compound. (I'll also put a redirect on the first, non-existent, article, so that it goes to the second.) -Scottwiki 21:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flora (plants)

edit
Nominated on 09:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC); needs 9 votes by May 4, 2006.

This article is nominated as AID, but following discussion, it was agreed to change its nomination to COTW. Although it has a considerable length it was also agreed that it should be considered a stub, there is no much information on the subject itself. This article would interest, I believe, a large number of contributors, specially does who make biology-related contributions. The article is about a generic term and has many possibilities of following his sister article Fauna (animals) also nominated as COTW.

Support:

  1. Francisco Valverde 09:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jasu 17:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. PDXblazers 00:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Scottwiki 06:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. St jimmy 17:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. EncycloPetey 11:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Avala 09:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

  1. --Salix alba (talk) 10:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • My opposition is that I think that there is actually very little to do with this article which is not covered by plants. Flora by itself just means that the collection of plants which grow in an area. There is much to say about the flora of a particular country, but not about the general term itself. --Salix alba (talk) 10:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have a point there Salix alba. Both expressions Flora & Fauna are getting old and are used less. But I would say it's still worth having them as short entries in the wp pointing to Plants and other articles. Flora also has the problem that sometimes it's used to include bacteria, or that it's meant as plants of an era. Jasu 14:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree; there is much that can be said here, since the term "Flora" can refer to a book about the vegetation of a region. The history, prepartaion, and utility of such a book does not yet have coverage on Wikipedia. --EncycloPetey 11:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fauna (animals) is the new COTW. I recommend that Flora (plants) be edited in tandem with Fauna -- though with more focus on Fauna, since it has received more votes. (Unfortunately, I probably won't have time to do much work on the articles, since I'm taking classes and my final papers are due soon.) -Scottwiki 21:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gervaise

edit
Nominated on 18:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by 4 May.

Non existant article. It is the only redlinked film in the list of the BAFTA Award for Best Film. It could at least deserve a short article.

Support:

  1. Francisco Valverde 18:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Medicine in Ancient Greece

edit
Nominated on 22:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC); needs 6 votes by May 4, 2006.

Support:

  1. Neutralitytalk 22:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fxer 22:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. J. Finkelstein 03:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Angner 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Maestlin 21:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Osbus 22:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Definitely. --Osbus 22:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was the last vote too late...? Didn't the dead line end at 22:31, May 4? Because Osbus' vote came at 22:49. Does it stay or go?? --Francisco Valverde 15:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Franz Liszt

edit
Nominated on 08:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by May 11.

This man is the father of romantic music, such as Liebesträume No 3 and Hungarian Rhapsody No 2. There are houndreds of hundreds biographies of Liszt and over thousand letters written by Liszt, but despite this, his article is only 3 pages long.

Support:

  1. Funper 08:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:


Compulsory education

edit
Nominated on 20:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC); needs 15 votes by May 10, 2006.

Very short article about a fairly important topic

Support:

  1. CarabinieriTTaallkk 20:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. PDXblazers 20:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Scottwiki 22:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Visviva 08:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Alex Krupp 00:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Rory096 21:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Badlands17
  8. (^'-')^ Covington 07:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. SpeedyGonsales 14:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. CrossTimer 12:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Skinnyweed 19:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Osbus 20:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Possibly the most important function of government today. Support wholeheartedly. PDXblazers 20:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very important issue, really needs editing. CrossTimer 12:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination is in danger of being removed for insufficient votes. Yet, if it were to remain until Sunday, it would likely be the winning nomination. I propose, therefore, that it should be removed only if and when it is not this week's winner. -Scottwiki 06:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with this sentiment, only because it has substantially more support than any of the other nominations. What up with the cotw last few weeks? Hardly anyone stopping by. PDXblazers 23:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forensic biology

edit
Nominated on 21:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by May 9, 2006.

Found on the missing articles WikiProject. Very important subject, including portrayals in popular culture like Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, etc. Could be modelled after Forensic chemistry. We already have sub-articles on Forensic odontology, Forensic toxicology, Forensic psychology, Forensic anthropology, Forensic entomology, Forensic Facial Reconstruction, and Ballistic fingerprinting.

Support:

  1. savidan(talk) (e@) 21:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Redwood National and State Parks

edit
Nominated on 03:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by May 11.

There are so many wonderful national parks articles on Wikipedia. Yet, this one seems to have been severly neglected. One of America's most beautiful national parks has one of Wikipedia's worst articles. This is a shame, and we should fix it

Support:

  1. PDXblazers 03:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Icelandic Hurricane #12 19:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Nathan's

edit
Nominated on 22:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by May 13.

Corporation with an interesting history; didn't expect the article to be that short.

Support:

  1. PseudoSudo 22:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

News

Nominated on 19:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC); needs 6 votes by May 16, 2006.

Very important subject, yet neither this article, nor journalism include much info on the topic.

Support:

  1. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 15:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Ynhockey (Talk) 08:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Foreign policy

edit
Nominated on 23:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by May 15.

pretty important topic to be stuck with a lousy stub

Support:

  1. PDXblazers 23:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Okinawadude 16:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Aviation

edit
Nominated on 20:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC); needs 9 votes by May 20.

A whopping three sentences on this subject? Something must be done!

Support:

  1. PDXblazers 20:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Avala 09:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Felixboy 19:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. RJH 21:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Christhebull 14:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Ynhockey (Talk) 08:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Yes, hundreds of years of aviation can not be summed up in three sentences. More info should be put in this article instead of just links to somewhere else.

note, this has undergone a merger since its nomination, and now has considerably more content. Although I still believe that a collaboration would substantially benefit what is still a very poor artilce, if there is a consensus to move the article to AID from here, I would not oppose such a move. PDXblazers 23:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Think this should be moved to AID. It still needs work but is better suited there I belive.

Weak agree on move to AID - this article has numerous factual errors and its very basis of equating 'Air Transport' to 'Aviation' is incorrect. Possibly needs deletion and a complete rewrite Crum375 13:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Opposition (politics)

edit
Nominated on 08:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by May 19, 2006.

A very important political subject, almost as important as government itself in modern politics, but only has a small stub.

Support:

  1. Ynhockey (Talk) 08:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. St. Jimmy 11:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Skinnyweed 17:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: 

This nomination did not reached the number of votes required by the 19th of May, the third vote was casted the 20th. It should have been removed. I will update the removed nominations. --Francisco Valverde 14:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Granary

edit
Nominated on 16:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by 19 May.

Granaries have been important in history, agriculture, society and economy .They are still very important. Very much could be said in terms of the history of agriculture, the different types of granaries and the importance in different cultures (in proverbs, stories, etc...) It is still, at this stage, a stub. Building a image gallery of granaries would also be nice.

Support:

  1. Francisco Valverde 16:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sean Brunnock 18:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

History of France

edit
Nominated on 03:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC); needs 6 votes by May 24.

Article is mostly outline and severely lacking in prose

Support:

  1. Richard 03:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. PDXblazers 03:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Manwe 13:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Avala 19:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cvene64 04:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Better suited in AID Okinawadude 16:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the assumption that this would be better served on AID. The actual content of the article is a stub. I do not consider the list to count as content. I think that this article is PERFECT for cotw. AID is mostly for copyediting and fine tuning, not adding gobs of content. PDXblazers 03:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I also feel that it would be better at WP:AID --Francisco Valverde 13:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Implementation

edit
Nominated on 12:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by May 25.

One sentence, refers to nothing regarding methods of implementing a solution or system to replace the an old solution, or implementation methods (direct changeover, phased etc.). I would do this alone but I'm busy.

Support:

  1. x42bn6 Talk 12:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Josen 20:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Proverb

edit
Nominated on 02:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by May 31.

A basic topic in language with a very ragged treatment here (although improved from a few weeks ago).

Support:

  1. Outriggr 02:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • I don't think that this article is, technically, a stub. However, in light of the paucity of nominees, I suppose it's close enough to a stub to merit consideration. (In general, perhaps we should relax the rules, in order to allow not only stubs but other short articles. I don't have a good definition of "short" at the moment; I'm just raising the idea for future consideration.) -Scottwiki 09:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that "stub" is a moving target, relative to the importance of the topic. I've seen too many random articles that are three sentences long on minor league football/soccer players, and though they've been marked a stub, I think to myself, "relative to the importance of this article, why even bother including it as a stub?" On the other hand, here is a basic topic in language with a long and colorful history, crossing many cultures, and it's a mish-mash of sentences that take up about one computer screen. Stub? I say yes. Outriggr 23:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe there needs to be a new definition of what COTW is - that it is for articles which are shorter than they should be? while AID is for articles that are already the right length. since wikipedia is larger than when COTW started there are not as many major topics that are just stubs --Astrokey44 02:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chum Salmon

edit
Nominated on 20:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by June 1.

This needs much more work

Support:

  1. Josen 20:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Rock-A-Doodle

edit
Nominated on 14:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by June 4.

This Don Bluth film is among his most underrated ever—and so is the Wikipedia article about it. Watching it on The Movie Channel yesterday morning made me want to expand it (and I even pretended I was Edmond for one day)!

Support:

  1. Slgrandson 14:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Baby shower

edit
Nominated on 02:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by June 7.

Past nominee from 2004 that got more votes than any of the current nominees, but still has not been improved beyond a stub.

Support:

  1. Davodd 02:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Walkerma 06:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Coastal plain

edit
Nominated on 02:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by June 7.

Past nominee from 2004 that got more votes than any of the current nominees, but still has not been improved beyond a stub.

Support:

  1. Davodd 02:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Primordial elements

edit
Nominated on 19:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by 8 June.

Primordial elements could be a much better article. It will interest all those chemists and geologists. It seems literally a primordial article to have in Wikipedia

Support:

  1. Francisco Valverde 19:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Linux community

edit
Nominated on 20:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by June 8, 2006.

There is a need for an article to describe the Linux community, it can refer to websites and magazines such as LinuxQuestions.org and what is listed at Linux#See also. It could also discuss in broad terms the extent to which communities exist for specific distributions and how these relate to each other and the whole. It could refer to Linux advocacy activities and Linux User Groups. I think this is a sufficiently widespread social phenomenon to deserve an article.

Support:

  1. Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ZeWrestler Talk 18:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Oil

edit
Nominated on 07:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by 19 June.

Really important topic that should summarize all the different types of oil, needs expansion.

Support:

  1. Wackymacs 07:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Please consider nominating this article at WP:AID, instead. Davodd 19:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lower respiratory tract infection

edit
Nominated on 18:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by 19 June.

May be a little esoteric, but it kills 4,000,000 people every year. One in 14 people die of this i.e. 70,000 Wikipedians will be killed by it. So it seems important.

Support:

  1. EamonnPKeane 18:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Wedding planner

edit
Nominated on 18:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by June 20.

Profession referenced in popular culture. Previously nominated in 2004 - still an empty article.

Support:

  1. Davodd 18:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: FAILED: Lack of votes

Junk mail

edit
Nominated on 18:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by June 20.

Previous nomination from 2004. Currently just a redirect to bulk mail. Deserves its own article being that not all junk mail is bulk mail and not all bulk mail (magazine subscriptions, newspapers) are junk mail. These common everyday articles are quite popular COTWs.

Support:

  1. Davodd 18:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: FAILED: Lack of votes

Forensic identification

edit
Nominated on 18:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by June 20.

Previous nomination from 2004. Just a list, could be much more, especially with new interest in the topic due to the recent Supreme Court decision regarding DNA evidence found after the fact.

Support:

  1. Davodd 18:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Avala 20:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: FAILED: Lack of votes

Embargo

edit
Nominated on 02:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC); needs 9 votes by June 21.

Past nominee from 2004 that got more votes than any of the current nominees, but still has not been improved beyond a stub.

Support:

  1. Davodd 02:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Avala 15:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Duran 04:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The Bread 03:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Zerak-Tul 18:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Valentinian (talk) 14:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Skinnyweed 23:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

FAILED - lack of votes

Cyberschool

edit
Nominated on 11:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC); needs 6 votes by 25 June.

Having worked a little with school, Cyberschool seems a logical progression. It is a new emerging form of education which may become very important in a near future but which to this date is quite a short stub article

Support:

  1. Francisco Valverde 11:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Ksax 11:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Skinnyweed 23:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

FAILED: lack of votes

AFL-CIO

edit
Nominated on 18:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC); needs 6 votes by June 27.

Previous nomination from 2004. Still a stub despite its rich and varied history.

Support:

  1. Davodd 18:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Bookandcoffee 21:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. JerryOrr 23:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. PDXblazers 01:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

FAILED: lack of votes

Zygote

edit
Nominated on 18:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC); needs 6 votes by June 27.

Previous nomination from 2004. Still a stub. Deserves more than 3-4 sentences.

Support:

  1. Davodd 18:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. AndyZ 23:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Avala 15:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Does it need to be more than it is? It seems that anything you could say about zygotes is covered by the articles linked in it. Stubinitis? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Among the topics not covered: The differences between plant and animal zygotes, The history of the scientific discovery of zygotes and their place in the reproductive cycle, Images/photos of zygotes. 20:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I might support the photos. The rest I still think would be better covered in related articles. Zygotes are not that interesting in their own right. They become interesting only when discussed in terms of the reproductive cycle. Basically, like gametes (look at the article, mostly dictdef), the term zygote is a piece of jargon that enables us to talk fluently about interesting things. I'm not sure, however, that the object referred to is interesting in isolation. (Perhaps a little like schools, furniture and boxes...) - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FAILED: lack of votes

Dressing (medical)

edit
Nominated on 18:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by June 30.

Medical articles are always easy to research online and are applicable internationally.

Support:

  1. Davodd 18:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: FAILED: Lack of votes

Prospect (sports)

edit
Nominated on 03:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by July 7.

Major concept in professional sports; basis of the farm system, the draft, the futures, etc.

Support:

  1. TheProject 03:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. nick.dilallo@gmail.com 03:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Cocoa butter

edit
Nominated on 07:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by July 6.

Very common substance with a rich history and an interesting manufacturing process.

Support:

  1. Davodd 07:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fsotrain09 04:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: This article needs references, and expansion. COTW should provide that. -Fsotrain09 04:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apostolic Palace

edit
Nominated on 07:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by July 6.

The Pope's house now, the building has a lengthy architectural lineage and a history of intrigue, sex and murder.

Support:

  1. Davodd 07:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. savidan(talk) (e@) 05:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Open space

edit
Nominated on 07:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by July 6.

The counter of suburban sprawl needs to be fleshed out.

Support:

  1. Davodd 07:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Rescue

edit
Nominated on 07:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by July 6.

The work and history of rescue organizations worldwide deserves more than this.

Support:

  1. Davodd 07:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Purge the cache to refresh this page

This page contains nominations from the main collaboration of the week page which have been removed due to lack of votes or because they're unsuitable nominations. Successful nominations are listed at the history page.

The below failed nominations should be moved to the appropriate archive:

G8

edit
nominated 12:55 March 31, 2006. Needs 20 votes by April 5.

This is an article that can be a collaboration of the week because G8 is frequently supported, and also frequently criticized.


Comments This is no stub... It should be nominated in any case in WP:AID. --Francisco Valverde 09:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camp David

edit
Nominated on 17:19, March 30, 2006. Needs 5 votes by March 31.

Camp David is so important that I nominate this article to COTW.

Support:

Comments:

Demographics of Africa

edit
Nominated on 00:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC); needs 12 votes by March 30.

We have articles fornearly all the African countries, and all of them links to it through the {{Africa in topic}} template. THere'salot to write about population movements and stuff

Support:

  1. Circeus 00:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Y Ynhockey || Talk Y 22:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 02:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Darwinek 09:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The Tom 23:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mark 13:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. PDXblazers 04:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Avala 19:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Crna tec Gora 20:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Passdoubt | Talk 08:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Montenegrin independence referendum, 2006

edit
Nominated on 23:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC); needs 9 votes by 30 March, 2006.

Process that could result in the first new country since East Timor. Stub at present, could do with more backgrounding and preparation in the leadup to the vote.

Support:

  1. The Tom 23:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   CrnaGora | Talk 00:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Ottoman Sultan | Talk 01:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 16:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Caponer 20:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   - Darwinek 16:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Roman Dictator Gaius Julius Caesar IV (aka Julius Caesar) 07:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed:

  1. 202.40.210.246 07:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Anon votes don't count. -- King of Hearts talk 17:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I wonder why the adjective form of "Montengro" is "Montenegrin" and not "Montenegran". J. Finkelstein 18:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Line-item veto

edit
Nominated on 05:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC); needs 6 votes by March 28, 2006.

This is not only a stub, but a really awful one! It is becoming important with current political events, as the president is trying to gain the right of line item veto.

Support:

  1. PDXblazers 05:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Harro5 23:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Aaronwinborn 01:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Crna tec Gora 20:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Ross (ElCharismo) 18:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Jacobean era

edit
Nominated on 01:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC); needs 6 votes by 30 March.

This article could be expanded on so much, yet it's sadly so short. If you compare it with the vastness of the Victorian Era article, the Jacobean era is weak. I plan, if this go ahead, to put a lot of time and effort into developing the article. I will, however, need others help in doing so, which is the reason I'm nominating it. It could be a large and interesting article on what is a significant period of English history.

Support:

  1. Schizmatic 01:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Caponer 17:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Crna tec Gora 04:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Mahon

edit
Nominated on 10:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC); needs 6 votes by 2 April 2006.

There is much more to Mahon than just spelling controversies. It needs more sections on its history, geography, culture, etc.

Support:

  1. Francisco Valverde 10:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Caponer 17:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Crna tec Gora 04:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Partisan (political)

edit
Nominated on 20:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC); needs 6 votes by April 2, 2006.

Important political term with only an average-sized stub article

Support:

  1. Carabinieri 20:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Crna tec Gora 04:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. St jimmy 12:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Avala 19:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Jamshedpur

edit
Nominated on 12:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by April 2, 2006.

This is an important city in India and the article could use a lot of improvement

Support:

  1. Arundhati bakshi 12:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Compasso d'oro

edit
Nominated on 06:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC); needs 6 votes by April 7.

It is a very important award in the industrial design world. I think need improvment... and there are in general poor content on design.

Support:

  1. Juan Scott 06:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 05:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. User: YankeeDoodle14

Comments:

2000s in fashion

edit
Nominated on 09:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by April 8, 2006.

This article is in an extremely bad state, much like the 1980s fashion article used to be. This now needs serious expansion and a whole rewrite, let's get this to a decent standard!

Support:

  1. Wackymacs 09:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Root cellar

edit
Nominated on 13:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC); needs 6 votes by April 9.

An important architectural need that developed differently - but concurrently-- in several cultures. Essential for the development of modern non-nomadic cultures worldwide.

Support:

  1. Davodd 13:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 20:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Ross (ElCharismo) 18:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Scottwiki 02:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. User: YankeeDoodle14

Comments:

Tower

edit
Nominated on 20:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC); needs 6 votes by 10 April 2006.

This article is one of the most important architectural articles on Wikipedia, like bridge, arch, dam, dome, etc. Unlike those articles, however, this article is currently worse than a stub: it's nothing but an overgrown list, barely any more than a disambiguation page! (The actual dab page is at Tower (disambiguation), though.) This article needs serious work as soon as possible.

Support:

  1. Silence 20:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 23:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. PDXblazers 07:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. St jimmy 13:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. King of Hearts talk 00:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Hard Tack and Coffee

edit
Nominated on 01:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by April 10.

I think that this classic Civil War book should be given more attention then it now has.

Support:

  1. YankeeDoodle14 01:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

This article is in desperate need of information on the author, the publishing, and the impact of the book.

K.A. Paul

edit
Nominated on 05:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by April 13, 2006.

I noticed a new section in the Charles Taylor article on Kilari Anand Paul. As an unusual religious figure with a large following, profiles in mainstream publications, and a significant connection to Taylor, Paul should get a moderate-sized Wikipedia article. I've created a stub. But there's more, good and bad, that needs to be added.

Support:

  1. Scottwiki 05:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Dr. Paul has been all over, seen so much and has met with just about every Third World leader one can name, as well as many within the Western world as well. He has large "charity cities" in India that helps women and orphans and has donated a lot to good causes, including relief efforts after the tsunami in Indonesia. He has been featured in many mainstream media publications such as The New Republic, The Washington Times, The New Yorker Magazine, The Houston Chronicle and the Associated Press and makes news in odd ways on a consistent basis. Some of his methods and approaches to solving "world problems" are unconventional and often rub people the wrong way, but he seems to be among the few truly committed to the cause of peace and eradicating poverty. Like him or not, Kilari Anand Paul deserves a Wikipedia article. - Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 17:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • The article as I found it yesterday seemed extremely POV, loaded with terms like "leader of a doomsday cult."

STX Lacrosse (or just STX)

edit
Nominated on 03:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by 14 April.

STX is a major lacrosse company in the United States (elsewhere too?). I recently noticed that it does not have an article. This company is very well known and deserves an article.

Support:

  1. Yarnalgo 03:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Osbus 21:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • I just found out that they were the first company to make plastic heads! I had no idea, plastic heads are used world wide, and the fact that STX started it is amazing. --Yarnalgo 02:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That proposed article name is ... uh ... definitely not in line with the WP style guide. Anyway, STX is a brand-name for both lacrosse and golf accessories. It is a brand owned by STX, LLC, a subsidiary of William T. Burnett Inc. - ether of which would be better names for this missing article. [4] - Davodd 18:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was definetly not thinking of calling the article "STX Lacrosse (or just STX)"! What i meant by that was it could be called "STX Lacrosse" or it could be called "STX". I did not know that they also make golf accessories so both of your suggestions are great. Yarnalgo 18:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Equestrianism

edit
Nominated on 05:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by 14 April.

Our article on horses is excellent, but I was surprised to find that our article on actually how to ride a horse, horsemanship aka equestrianism, is still a stub. This article should be expanded by somebody with knowledge on the subject.

Support:

  1. Lantoka 05:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Rai University

edit
Nominated on 21:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by April 14.

Apparently one of the biggest universities in India, and currently in terrible shape (even worse a few weeks ago before Jimbo asked us on IRC to expand it because a woman from the press who went there was disgusted with it; see this old version). --Rory096 21:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support:

  1. Rory096 21:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Disarmament

edit
Nominated on 05:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by April 15, 2006.

This was previously an AID nomination.[5] However, because it's a stub, I'm nominating it in COTW.

Support:

  1. Scottwiki 05:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. PDXblazers 07:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Very important topic. I absolutely support this. PDXblazers 07:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tardigrade

edit
Nominated on 06:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by 15 April.

Absolutely fascinating animals. This article has a lot of potential - just take a look at the German featured article. I think it's time we get this article up to the same standard!

Support:

  1. Mgiganteus1 06:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Some of my favorite microfauna! EncycloPetey 05:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Penthouse apartment

edit
Nominated on 13:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by 15 April.

This is an important type of house,many people live in it and much more people want to own one,but yet the article is only 4 sentences? How is this possible?

Support:

  1. Whoshiwoo 13:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Typr 11:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed vote

  1. --67.15.183.4 12:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC) (anonymous vote)[reply]

Comments:

Spoon (band)

edit
Nominated on 00:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by April 17 ,2006.

This is a well-known, influential rock band known for their creative techniques. The article doesn't do them justice.

Support:

  1. Osbus 00:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Scottwiki 01:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

1972 Nixon visit to China

edit
Nominated on 04:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by April 16.

This is a very important event that changed the history of the Cold War and has had a profound influence on the modern history of both countries. I believe that more than a single paragraph is warranted.

Support:

  1. PDXblazers 04:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Jiang 04:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Jean de Brosse

edit
Nominated on 01:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by April 17.

I think that this extremely important French General should be given more attention.

Support:

  1. YankeeDoodle14 01:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Luka Jačov 17:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Brine (company)

edit
Nominated on 19:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by April 23.

Brine is a major sporting goods company in the United States. They make lacrosse, field hockey, and soccer equipment. It is a well known company that deserves an article.

Support:

  1. Yarnalgo 19:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Many thousands of companies (perhaps hundreds of thousands) are important in one sector or another in one or more countries. Perhaps each of these companies should, ideally, have at least a stub. But I doubt that most companies should have more than a stub. In any event, I don't think that an article about a company should be a high priority, unless the company has some significance greater than its importance within a sector (e.g., prominence in the news, cultural significance, or unusually high employment). I'd recommend that Yarnalgo create the basic articles -- or longer articles, if Yarnalgo feels it is justified -- about Brine and last week's nominee STX. Yarnalgo clearly has an interest and some knowledge about these companies; who better to create the article? -Scottwiki 16:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Scottwiki, I have will do this and all ready have started an STX article. I won't put any more company articles on COTW.--Yarnalgo 22:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't want to dissuade you from putting any company articles on COTW. If you think that a company meets the criteria for COTW, then I hope that you'll nominate it. In any event, good job in starting the STX article! -Scottwiki 03:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard III (1955 film)

edit
Nominated on 09:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by 25 April.

Important British film that has little to no information on it at the moment.

Support:

  1. Thefourdotelipsis 09:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

I feel about this nomination much as I do for the nomination of the Brine company. There are many thousands of films (like many thousands of companies) that are significant -- but does every film deserve a detailed article? Ideally, perhaps, but I doubt that it's a priority unless the film is a cultural touchstone or has some other unusual importance. -Scottwiki 17:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it did use some innovative tecniques, and it was the inspiration for the Blackadder TV series Thefourdotelipsis 08:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I like Blackadder (the theme song(s) for which will now be in my head all day!), I'm not persuaded to vote in support. But, as with most subjects (including the companies), I suppose that reasonable people can disagree on this topic's suitability for COTW. -Scottwiki 16:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now, I'm not trying to convince you to support, but I just though I'd add that this film won the BAFTA award for Best Picture and Best Actor.Thefourdotelipsis 05:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hot dog stand

edit
Nominated on 21:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC); needs 9 votes by April 26.

Hot dog stands are very important in the United States. I feel they should have a much bigger article than what they currently have.

Support:

  1. Knowitall 21:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Scottwiki 22:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yarnalgo 03:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. CarabinieriTTaallkk 11:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. PDXblazers 05:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. CrossTimer 12:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. CrnaGora 02:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

I don't feel as strongly about this as compulsory education or the others I've voted for. Still, I believe it's deserving of more than a stub, even if not a lengthy article. -Scottwiki 22:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don Lapre

edit
Nominated on 23:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by April 27, 2006.

Who doesn't remember infomercial superstar Don Lapre! Oh the fond memories of him boisterously promoting some Making Money program, and more recently uber-vitamins. Is he a crook, a hero, the epitome of capitalism? Who knows, because the article is a sentence long! :)

Support:

  1. Fxer 23:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Bubble bath

edit
Nominated on 11:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC); needs 12 votes by April 29, 2006.

This is an astonishingly short article

Support:

  1. Carabinieri 11:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Scottwiki 02:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Budgiekiller 08:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Yarnalgo 03:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. PDXblazers 07:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Unixer 13:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. (^'-')^ Covington 04:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. CrossTimer 12:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. -Benbread 12:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Mazzy 15:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. CrnaGora 02:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

I doubt that it needs to be a lengthy article. But it should be more than two sentences. I haven't researched the topic; but I imagine that one could write a lively little history and description of cultural significance. Moreover, a colorful image of a bubble bath would be very soothing. :-) -Scottwiki 02:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you may have been drunk(!) to nominate this but I wholeheartedly support the inclusion of lovely picture of a bath full of bubbles. I may attempt to create one, regardless of whether this collaboration is accepted! Budgiekiller 08:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing "Bubble bath" I was a little afraid of what this world is coming to, but after looking at the article I support this nomination 100%! Yarnalgo 03:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I laughed quite loudly when I first saw this nominations. But since then, for some reason it keeps calling me and I can't help but vote for it. PDXblazers 07:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice pick, Carabinieri. We can definitely give this a major fix-up. (^'-')^ Covington 04:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I'm not sure how this article can be so short when Bubble Bath is such a large market, in the washing/bathing industry at least.

Can't resist such a charming topic. Mazzy 15:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fabales

edit
Nominated on 03:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC); needs 12 votes by May 1, 2006.

I know little about plants, and don't have much interest in them. But when 300 Wikipedia pages link to the Fabales stub, I do know that there's a problem. (It's currently # 73 on the list of most wanted stubs, and should be higher than that, since many of the higher-ranked entries are no longer stubs.) I don't feel that its Wikispecies entry[6] is sufficient to make up for it, especially since many more people use Wikipedia than Wikispecies.

Support:

  1. Scottwiki 03:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Silence 04:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --HolyRomanEmperor 17:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. User: YankeeDoodle14
  5. Davodd 02:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. RexNL 10:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --EncycloPetey 09:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Curtis Clark 16:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Thefourdotelipsis 00:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. CrnaGora 02:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

I do not undertand! First the deadline ended the 24th April, and it did not reach enough votes, (see above). Then no one removed it, and now it has a new deadline of the 1st of May. Could someone explain??? --Francisco Valverde 17:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Westlife

edit

A popular group that worth to let us make it a featured article.

Support:

  1. 百家姓之四 10:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: But it is not a stub, it's quite a long article. Why don't you send it to WP:AID. --Francisco Valverde 11:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Yarnalgo 02:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Organic compound

edit
Nominated on 20:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC); needs 6 votes by May 2, 2006.

Organic compounds are so important in biology and chemistry, yet this article is so short. So many things in this world are organic compounds. They are essential in our life. Yet, here we have a four paragraph article.

Support:

  1. TheKillerAngel 20:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Thefourdotelipsis 05:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Asterion talk to me  10:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. PDXblazers 20:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

I have taken the liberty of changing the title of this nomination from Organic Compounds to Organic compound. (I'll also put a redirect on the first, non-existent, article, so that it goes to the second.) -Scottwiki 21:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flora (plants)

edit
Nominated on 09:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC); needs 9 votes by May 4, 2006.

This article is nominated as AID, but following discussion, it was agreed to change its nomination to COTW. Although it has a considerable length it was also agreed that it should be considered a stub, there is no much information on the subject itself. This article would interest, I believe, a large number of contributors, specially does who make biology-related contributions. The article is about a generic term and has many possibilities of following his sister article Fauna (animals) also nominated as COTW.

Support:

  1. Francisco Valverde 09:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jasu 17:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. PDXblazers 00:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Scottwiki 06:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. St jimmy 17:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. EncycloPetey 11:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Avala 09:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

  1. --Salix alba (talk) 10:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • My opposition is that I think that there is actually very little to do with this article which is not covered by plants. Flora by itself just means that the collection of plants which grow in an area. There is much to say about the flora of a particular country, but not about the general term itself. --Salix alba (talk) 10:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have a point there Salix alba. Both expressions Flora & Fauna are getting old and are used less. But I would say it's still worth having them as short entries in the wp pointing to Plants and other articles. Flora also has the problem that sometimes it's used to include bacteria, or that it's meant as plants of an era. Jasu 14:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree; there is much that can be said here, since the term "Flora" can refer to a book about the vegetation of a region. The history, prepartaion, and utility of such a book does not yet have coverage on Wikipedia. --EncycloPetey 11:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fauna (animals) is the new COTW. I recommend that Flora (plants) be edited in tandem with Fauna -- though with more focus on Fauna, since it has received more votes. (Unfortunately, I probably won't have time to do much work on the articles, since I'm taking classes and my final papers are due soon.) -Scottwiki 21:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gervaise

edit
Nominated on 18:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by 4 May.

Non existant article. It is the only redlinked film in the list of the BAFTA Award for Best Film. It could at least deserve a short article.

Support:

  1. Francisco Valverde 18:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Medicine in Ancient Greece

edit
Nominated on 22:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC); needs 6 votes by May 4, 2006.

Support:

  1. Neutralitytalk 22:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fxer 22:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. J. Finkelstein 03:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Angner 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Maestlin 21:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Osbus 22:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Definitely. --Osbus 22:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was the last vote too late...? Didn't the dead line end at 22:31, May 4? Because Osbus' vote came at 22:49. Does it stay or go?? --Francisco Valverde 15:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Franz Liszt

edit
Nominated on 08:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by May 11.

This man is the father of romantic music, such as Liebesträume No 3 and Hungarian Rhapsody No 2. There are houndreds of hundreds biographies of Liszt and over thousand letters written by Liszt, but despite this, his article is only 3 pages long.

Support:

  1. Funper 08:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:


Compulsory education

edit
Nominated on 20:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC); needs 15 votes by May 10, 2006.

Very short article about a fairly important topic

Support:

  1. CarabinieriTTaallkk 20:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. PDXblazers 20:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Scottwiki 22:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Visviva 08:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Alex Krupp 00:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Rory096 21:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Badlands17
  8. (^'-')^ Covington 07:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. SpeedyGonsales 14:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. CrossTimer 12:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Skinnyweed 19:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Osbus 20:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Possibly the most important function of government today. Support wholeheartedly. PDXblazers 20:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very important issue, really needs editing. CrossTimer 12:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination is in danger of being removed for insufficient votes. Yet, if it were to remain until Sunday, it would likely be the winning nomination. I propose, therefore, that it should be removed only if and when it is not this week's winner. -Scottwiki 06:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with this sentiment, only because it has substantially more support than any of the other nominations. What up with the cotw last few weeks? Hardly anyone stopping by. PDXblazers 23:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forensic biology

edit
Nominated on 21:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by May 9, 2006.

Found on the missing articles WikiProject. Very important subject, including portrayals in popular culture like Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, etc. Could be modelled after Forensic chemistry. We already have sub-articles on Forensic odontology, Forensic toxicology, Forensic psychology, Forensic anthropology, Forensic entomology, Forensic Facial Reconstruction, and Ballistic fingerprinting.

Support:

  1. savidan(talk) (e@) 21:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Redwood National and State Parks

edit
Nominated on 03:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by May 11.

There are so many wonderful national parks articles on Wikipedia. Yet, this one seems to have been severly neglected. One of America's most beautiful national parks has one of Wikipedia's worst articles. This is a shame, and we should fix it

Support:

  1. PDXblazers 03:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Icelandic Hurricane #12 19:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Nathan's

edit
Nominated on 22:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by May 13.

Corporation with an interesting history; didn't expect the article to be that short.

Support:

  1. PseudoSudo 22:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

News

Nominated on 19:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC); needs 6 votes by May 16, 2006.

Very important subject, yet neither this article, nor journalism include much info on the topic.

Support:

  1. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 15:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Ynhockey (Talk) 08:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Foreign policy

edit
Nominated on 23:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by May 15.

pretty important topic to be stuck with a lousy stub

Support:

  1. PDXblazers 23:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Okinawadude 16:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Aviation

edit
Nominated on 20:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC); needs 9 votes by May 20.

A whopping three sentences on this subject? Something must be done!

Support:

  1. PDXblazers 20:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Avala 09:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Felixboy 19:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. RJH 21:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Christhebull 14:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Ynhockey (Talk) 08:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Yes, hundreds of years of aviation can not be summed up in three sentences. More info should be put in this article instead of just links to somewhere else.

note, this has undergone a merger since its nomination, and now has considerably more content. Although I still believe that a collaboration would substantially benefit what is still a very poor artilce, if there is a consensus to move the article to AID from here, I would not oppose such a move. PDXblazers 23:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Think this should be moved to AID. It still needs work but is better suited there I belive.

Weak agree on move to AID - this article has numerous factual errors and its very basis of equating 'Air Transport' to 'Aviation' is incorrect. Possibly needs deletion and a complete rewrite Crum375 13:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Opposition (politics)

edit
Nominated on 08:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by May 19, 2006.

A very important political subject, almost as important as government itself in modern politics, but only has a small stub.

Support:

  1. Ynhockey (Talk) 08:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. St. Jimmy 11:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Skinnyweed 17:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: 

This nomination did not reached the number of votes required by the 19th of May, the third vote was casted the 20th. It should have been removed. I will update the removed nominations. --Francisco Valverde 14:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Granary

edit
Nominated on 16:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by 19 May.

Granaries have been important in history, agriculture, society and economy .They are still very important. Very much could be said in terms of the history of agriculture, the different types of granaries and the importance in different cultures (in proverbs, stories, etc...) It is still, at this stage, a stub. Building a image gallery of granaries would also be nice.

Support:

  1. Francisco Valverde 16:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sean Brunnock 18:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

History of France

edit
Nominated on 03:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC); needs 6 votes by May 24.

Article is mostly outline and severely lacking in prose

Support:

  1. Richard 03:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. PDXblazers 03:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Manwe 13:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Avala 19:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cvene64 04:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Better suited in AID Okinawadude 16:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the assumption that this would be better served on AID. The actual content of the article is a stub. I do not consider the list to count as content. I think that this article is PERFECT for cotw. AID is mostly for copyediting and fine tuning, not adding gobs of content. PDXblazers 03:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I also feel that it would be better at WP:AID --Francisco Valverde 13:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Implementation

edit
Nominated on 12:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by May 25.

One sentence, refers to nothing regarding methods of implementing a solution or system to replace the an old solution, or implementation methods (direct changeover, phased etc.). I would do this alone but I'm busy.

Support:

  1. x42bn6 Talk 12:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Josen 20:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Proverb

edit
Nominated on 02:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by May 31.

A basic topic in language with a very ragged treatment here (although improved from a few weeks ago).

Support:

  1. Outriggr 02:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • I don't think that this article is, technically, a stub. However, in light of the paucity of nominees, I suppose it's close enough to a stub to merit consideration. (In general, perhaps we should relax the rules, in order to allow not only stubs but other short articles. I don't have a good definition of "short" at the moment; I'm just raising the idea for future consideration.) -Scottwiki 09:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that "stub" is a moving target, relative to the importance of the topic. I've seen too many random articles that are three sentences long on minor league football/soccer players, and though they've been marked a stub, I think to myself, "relative to the importance of this article, why even bother including it as a stub?" On the other hand, here is a basic topic in language with a long and colorful history, crossing many cultures, and it's a mish-mash of sentences that take up about one computer screen. Stub? I say yes. Outriggr 23:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe there needs to be a new definition of what COTW is - that it is for articles which are shorter than they should be? while AID is for articles that are already the right length. since wikipedia is larger than when COTW started there are not as many major topics that are just stubs --Astrokey44 02:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chum Salmon

edit
Nominated on 20:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by June 1.

This needs much more work

Support:

  1. Josen 20:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Rock-A-Doodle

edit
Nominated on 14:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by June 4.

This Don Bluth film is among his most underrated ever—and so is the Wikipedia article about it. Watching it on The Movie Channel yesterday morning made me want to expand it (and I even pretended I was Edmond for one day)!

Support:

  1. Slgrandson 14:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Baby shower

edit
Nominated on 02:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by June 7.

Past nominee from 2004 that got more votes than any of the current nominees, but still has not been improved beyond a stub.

Support:

  1. Davodd 02:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Walkerma 06:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Coastal plain

edit
Nominated on 02:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by June 7.

Past nominee from 2004 that got more votes than any of the current nominees, but still has not been improved beyond a stub.

Support:

  1. Davodd 02:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Primordial elements

edit
Nominated on 19:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by 8 June.

Primordial elements could be a much better article. It will interest all those chemists and geologists. It seems literally a primordial article to have in Wikipedia

Support:

  1. Francisco Valverde 19:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Linux community

edit
Nominated on 20:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by June 8, 2006.

There is a need for an article to describe the Linux community, it can refer to websites and magazines such as LinuxQuestions.org and what is listed at Linux#See also. It could also discuss in broad terms the extent to which communities exist for specific distributions and how these relate to each other and the whole. It could refer to Linux advocacy activities and Linux User Groups. I think this is a sufficiently widespread social phenomenon to deserve an article.

Support:

  1. Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ZeWrestler Talk 18:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Oil

edit
Nominated on 07:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by 19 June.

Really important topic that should summarize all the different types of oil, needs expansion.

Support:

  1. Wackymacs 07:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Please consider nominating this article at WP:AID, instead. Davodd 19:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lower respiratory tract infection

edit
Nominated on 18:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by 19 June.

May be a little esoteric, but it kills 4,000,000 people every year. One in 14 people die of this i.e. 70,000 Wikipedians will be killed by it. So it seems important.

Support:

  1. EamonnPKeane 18:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Wedding planner

edit
Nominated on 18:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by June 20.

Profession referenced in popular culture. Previously nominated in 2004 - still an empty article.

Support:

  1. Davodd 18:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: FAILED: Lack of votes

Junk mail

edit
Nominated on 18:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by June 20.

Previous nomination from 2004. Currently just a redirect to bulk mail. Deserves its own article being that not all junk mail is bulk mail and not all bulk mail (magazine subscriptions, newspapers) are junk mail. These common everyday articles are quite popular COTWs.

Support:

  1. Davodd 18:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: FAILED: Lack of votes

Forensic identification

edit
Nominated on 18:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by June 20.

Previous nomination from 2004. Just a list, could be much more, especially with new interest in the topic due to the recent Supreme Court decision regarding DNA evidence found after the fact.

Support:

  1. Davodd 18:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Avala 20:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: FAILED: Lack of votes

Embargo

edit
Nominated on 02:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC); needs 9 votes by June 21.

Past nominee from 2004 that got more votes than any of the current nominees, but still has not been improved beyond a stub.

Support:

  1. Davodd 02:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Avala 15:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Duran 04:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The Bread 03:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Zerak-Tul 18:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Valentinian (talk) 14:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Skinnyweed 23:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

FAILED - lack of votes

Cyberschool

edit
Nominated on 11:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC); needs 6 votes by 25 June.

Having worked a little with school, Cyberschool seems a logical progression. It is a new emerging form of education which may become very important in a near future but which to this date is quite a short stub article

Support:

  1. Francisco Valverde 11:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Ksax 11:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Skinnyweed 23:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

FAILED: lack of votes

AFL-CIO

edit
Nominated on 18:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC); needs 6 votes by June 27.

Previous nomination from 2004. Still a stub despite its rich and varied history.

Support:

  1. Davodd 18:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Bookandcoffee 21:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. JerryOrr 23:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. PDXblazers 01:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

FAILED: lack of votes

Zygote

edit
Nominated on 18:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC); needs 6 votes by June 27.

Previous nomination from 2004. Still a stub. Deserves more than 3-4 sentences.

Support:

  1. Davodd 18:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. AndyZ 23:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Avala 15:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Does it need to be more than it is? It seems that anything you could say about zygotes is covered by the articles linked in it. Stubinitis? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Among the topics not covered: The differences between plant and animal zygotes, The history of the scientific discovery of zygotes and their place in the reproductive cycle, Images/photos of zygotes. 20:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I might support the photos. The rest I still think would be better covered in related articles. Zygotes are not that interesting in their own right. They become interesting only when discussed in terms of the reproductive cycle. Basically, like gametes (look at the article, mostly dictdef), the term zygote is a piece of jargon that enables us to talk fluently about interesting things. I'm not sure, however, that the object referred to is interesting in isolation. (Perhaps a little like schools, furniture and boxes...) - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FAILED: lack of votes

Dressing (medical)

edit
Nominated on 18:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by June 30.

Medical articles are always easy to research online and are applicable internationally.

Support:

  1. Davodd 18:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: FAILED: Lack of votes

Prospect (sports)

edit
Nominated on 03:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by July 7.

Major concept in professional sports; basis of the farm system, the draft, the futures, etc.

Support:

  1. TheProject 03:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. nick.dilallo@gmail.com 03:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Cocoa butter

edit
Nominated on 07:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by July 6.

Very common substance with a rich history and an interesting manufacturing process.

Support:

  1. Davodd 07:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fsotrain09 04:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: This article needs references, and expansion. COTW should provide that. -Fsotrain09 04:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apostolic Palace

edit
Nominated on 07:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by July 6.

The Pope's house now, the building has a lengthy architectural lineage and a history of intrigue, sex and murder.

Support:

  1. Davodd 07:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. savidan(talk) (e@) 05:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Open space

edit
Nominated on 07:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by July 6.

The counter of suburban sprawl needs to be fleshed out.

Support:

  1. Davodd 07:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Rescue

edit
Nominated on 07:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by July 6.

The work and history of rescue organizations worldwide deserves more than this.

Support:

  1. Davodd 07:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Collaboration_of_the_week/Removed/2006/Archive_3&oldid=62796937"