Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week/Removed/2004/Archive 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 from September 5 to September 21, 2004.

Culture of Cambodia (9 votes after 3 Weeks)[edit]

Support

  1. Eloquence* 17:21, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Neutrality 17:40, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. TPK 08:29, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  4. Peregrine981 13:18, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Sam [Spade] 00:24, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  6. Tuf-Kat 22:45, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Djadek 14:30, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  8. [[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 23:55, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  9. Davodd 17:11, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • At time of writing a two paragraph stub. Surely more can be said about the rich culture of this country.Eloquence*

Reason for removal:

  • Lack of votes after three weeks. --Conti|✉ 21:13, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

Assault weapons ban (USA) (10 votes after 3 weeks)[edit]

Support

  1. Jimbo Wales 00:03, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  2. →Raul654 00:07, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Sam [Spade] 00:22, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  4. Neutrality 02:29, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  5. Andre 06:51, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  6. Austin Hair 09:48, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
  7. TPK 10:12, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  8. Wodan 17:09, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
  9. PlasmaDragon 13:21, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  10. PedanticallySpeaking 19:34, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • I am nominating this for AotW in the hopes that we can get it ready in time for the (likely) expiration of the Assault Weapon Ban on September 13th. It would be great to have it as FA for that day. It's sort of o.k., now, but it isn't great. Jimbo Wales 00:03, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Doesn't fit normal guidelines, but clearly needs alot of work, and with His Lairdship Jimbo's support seems like a shoe-in. Here's hoping the assault weapons ban goes out w a bang, Sam [Spade] 00:22, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Oh dear: I fear this is in the same category as Alan Keyes (removed the other day) in that Wikipedia:Peer Review it is more approraite place for it. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:27, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I've started some work on the article. It turns out it had the wrong definition for the ban this whole time! AWB banned on weapons with TWO or more characteristics, not one like the article said, which is a big difference. Wodan 17:09, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Hmm, I'd have to agree with ALoan - per the guidlines of this page, this should go to peer review. - Taxman 19:58, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
    • Agreed, this is not a candidate for COTW, its already too substantial. —siroχo 19:33, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • In the spirit of "we're all equal" this nomination should be deleted from here and moved to peer review. This article is in no way a stub. Davodd 18:19, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Not a stub. Moved to peer review page. Davodd 23:19, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

Confederate States Army (3 votes after 1 week)[edit]

Support:

  1. Allyunion 09:28, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. PedanticallySpeaking 20:02, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
  3. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 00:27, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Some details in the article, but not a full blown entry. --Allyunion 09:29, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • A picture in the article would be nice. I can see how you'd want to expand this article since it deals with an important event, but I feel that there are more needy articles around.

Reason for removal:

  • Lack of votes needed. Davodd 00:06, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

American Old West (14 votes after 4 weeks)[edit]

Support

  1. ALoan (Talk) 10:47, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  2. Jao 10:49, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
  3. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:41, 2004 Aug 12 (UTC)
  4. Conti|✉ 21:36, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
  5. • Benc • 05:13, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  6. Lockeownzj00 07:25, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  7. PlasmaDragon 16:46, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  8. Aranel 00:30, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  9. RickK 04:52, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
  10. Isomorphic 14:38, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  11. H2O 17:58, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  12. PFHLai 00:05, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)
  13. Davodd 17:07, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
  14. pie4all88 00:21, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • A renomination of a pathetic stub that that was on the list for 4 weeks and pruned a couple of weeks ago (see /Removed). It had 14 votes, which is one of the highest votes among the removed articles (I think only Art theft was higher at 15 votes, and it is not nearly so stubby). -- ALoan (Talk) 10:47, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • The American West was famous even outside America, and there's a lot to say about both the reality and the mythos. Isomorphic 14:38, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Culturally, a huge impact on the world. Our article is sad. Davodd 17:07, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Lack of votes needed. Davodd 00:06, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Dentures (4 votes after 1 week)[edit]

Nominated September 3; needed 5 votes by September 10 (minimum 5 votes per week)

Support

  1. Davodd 18:50, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
  2. FZ 21:37, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. Burgundavia 10:00, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
  4. pie4all88 00:21, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Inaccurate stub. There are many forms of and histroical figures associated with this device (including Geo. Washington and his wooden choppers). Could be an ideal collaboration. Davodd 18:50, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Yeah, this could make for an interesting project.

Reason for removal:

  • Lack of votes needed. Davodd 15:43, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

Yuan Dynasty (8 votes after 3 weeks)[edit]

Nominated August 20; needed 12 votes by September 10 (minimum 4 votes per week)

Support

  1. [[User:Colipon|Colipon -- (Talk)]] 17:46, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  2. Jiang 22:36, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. J3ff 08:15, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  4. Ambi 23:37, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  5. PlasmaDragon 13:23, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  6. Lockeownzj00 19:23, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  7. [[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 23:55, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  8. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 00:15, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Like any other dynasty, the Yuan Dynasty is a big part of the History of China series, and was an important period in world history. It needs desperate improvement such as wikifying and adding in missing information.
  • Nowhere near a stub. Not suitable. Tom- 16:08, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Most of the content is filled with a table. There is much information that can be added J3ff 01:30, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Lack of votes needed. Davodd 15:43, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

Open space (6 votes after 2 weeks)[edit]

Nominated August 27; needs 8 votes by September 10 (minimum 4 votes per week)

Support

  1. Gentgeen 12:39, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  2. Tothebarricades.tk 06:43, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. TPK 05:16, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  4. —siroχo 05:23, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Ambi 06:45, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  6. Davodd 17:25, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • much could be added to this one paragraph stub, such as open space districts, the history of setting aside open space, opposition to setting aside large areas of land, ect. Gentgeen
  • An important movement in America, and I wouldn't doubt other nations have similar initiatives. —siroχo 05:23, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Lack of votes needed. Davodd 15:46, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

Vespa mandarinia (Asian Giant Hornet) (4 votes after 1 week)[edit]

Nominated September 3; needs 5 votes by September 10 (minimum 5 votes per week)

Support

  1. [[User:Krik|User:Krik/norm]] 11:19, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. Farside 14:08, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. Filiocht 15:30, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 00:29, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Seen this in a rant on VFD. We need an article on this much more than articles about video game characters. [[User:Krik|User:Krik/norm]] 11:19, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I must disagree. Which do you think more people know/care about? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 02:53, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)
  • Ah, the argumentum ad populum really thrives here, doesn't it. One of the beauties of an encyclopaedia is that it preserves knowledge on relatively low-popularity subjects so that when the tide of faddism passes over, the other, specialist but vital information still survives. Maybe when we have driven all species of insects to extinction, someone may raise their head from their game console and read about the gone world on Wikipedia. Filiocht 15:30, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • It doesn't strike one as an article that will fire up a community and have enough scope for all our attentions. It's rather specialised, no? --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 01:31, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)----

Reason for removal:

  • Lack of votes needed. Davodd 15:49, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

Doctor Zhivago (18 votes in 5 weeks)[edit]

Nominated August 8; needs 20 votes by September 12 (minimum 4 votes per week)

Support

  1. Ambi 02:51, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  2. PFHLai 04:01, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)
  3. Johnleemk | Talk 06:58, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  4. RickK 23:11, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC) Great movie, some really bad translations out there.
  5. TPK 08:36, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  6. UtherSRG 11:24, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  7. Jwrosenzweig 22:48, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  8. Lyellin 10:01, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
  9. FZ 12:36, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  10. Conti|✉ 21:37, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
  11. Confuzion 14:08, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  12. PlasmaDragon 23:36, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  13. Aranel 00:27, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  14. Sjc 04:31, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC) and propose move to Doctor Zhivago (film)
  15. Gkhan 16:14, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
  16. PedanticallySpeaking 19:34, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
  17. Dysprosia 05:58, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  18. rhyax 10:51, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • For one of the most famous films ever made, we can do a lot better than this. Ambi 02:51, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Ditto Ambi. I still don't get (as in, understand) a lot of references to this film. Johnleemk | Talk 06:58, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't really care about the film...lack of info on the book is striking, though. --Tothebarricades.tk 23:50, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Should be moved to Doctor Zhivago (film). Misses the cultural references completely e.g. Zhivago = Russian for 'life' and and is merely a cast list. Completely lightweight article and needs substantially more work. Sjc 04:27, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Lack of votes. --Conti|✉ 19:55, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

Canterbury, England (4 votes in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated September 5; needs 5 votes by September 12 (minimum 5 votes per week)

Support

  1. Graham ☺ | Talk 20:04, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. CheekyMonkey 13:12, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. PedanticallySpeaking 20:02, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Matthewmayer 16:54, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comments

  • For one of the most important towns in England, historically, the current coverage is a bit disappointing. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 20:04, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • My home town - if I can figure out how to work my digital camera I'll try and add some photos at some point. CheekyMonkey 13:17, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Lack of votes. --Conti|✉ 19:57, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

Goods and Services Tax (Australia) (3 votes in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated September 6; needs 5 votes by September 13 (minimum 5 votes per week)

Support

  1. TPK 09:12, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 09:16, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. --John Lynch 15:15, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Sub-stub about a major issue in recent Australian politics, that has had major and ongoing effects (good or ill depending on who you ask) on the Australian economy, not to mention the controversy it caused for the Howard government. TPK 09:12, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • In serious need of help, but probably not of enough international interest to survive here. As much as I'd like to see this make COTW, I suspect it's going to be a job for a few of us alone. Ambi 09:16, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
There are a lot of localized pages here, e.g. the Culture of ...'s, British rock, Canterbury, England right above; many of them have quite a few votes. We'll wait and see though... TPK 09:48, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Is this like VAT? Could it not just redirect to there? zoney ▓   ▒ talk 10:07, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Similar, but the details and history of how it came about difer, so it does need a seperate entry. TPK 15:08, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • To me it seems quite difficult for any non-Australian to take part in such a collaboration. Also, although I don't dispute the subject's importance, there are other glaring holes in the Wikipedia I'd like to see filled first. Alarm 16:06, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that this is a great COTW, but I'll certainly try to make some improvements to the article. —Stormie 00:29, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Lack of votes. --Conti|✉ 12:09, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

K'nex (9 votes in 5 weeks)[edit]

Nominated August 24; needs 12 votes by September 14 (minimum 4 votes per week)

Support:

  1. LUDRAMAN | T 23:08, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  2. Aranel 02:28, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. PlasmaDragon 13:27, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  4. Lockeownzj00 19:24, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  5. Burgundavia 08:39, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
  6. Donar Reiskoffer 13:29, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  7. PFHLai 07:29, 2004 Sep 7 (UTC)
  8. zoney ▓   ▒ talk 09:34, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  9. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 13:31, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • I've spent so much time at this brilliant toy, and we've nothing on it. There is a lot to be written on it, and a lot of people could contribute. LUDRAMAN | T 23:08, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Lack of votes. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 10:46, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Contemporary art (11 votes in 3 weeks)[edit]

Nominated August 24; needs 12 votes by September 14 (minimum 4 votes per week)

Support:

  1. Chopchopwhitey 12:51, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  2. Donar Reiskoffer 06:18, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. PlasmaDragon 13:26, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  4. TPK 07:39, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  5. [[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 23:55, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  6. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 05:11, 2004 Sep 1 (UTC)
  7. Davodd 17:18, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
  8. Ambi 03:46, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  9. --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod .....TALKQuietly)]] 01:24, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
  10. Lexor|Talk 05:22, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  11. Donar Reiskoffer 08:48, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Encompassing art from the 60/70s onwards, including all present art, it really should be a lot more comprehensive. I wish I knew more about it to fill it out a bit! Chopchopwhitey 12:51, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • How can this stay 'contemporary'? Are the 60s still 'contemporary'? Maybe move to Art of the late 20th century or some such? Filiocht 08:03, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hi Filiocht; I've replied to you about this on Talk:Contemporary art. --Chopchopwhitey 08:49, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Lack of votes. --Conti|✉ 15:09, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Attila the Hun (31 votes after 8 weeks)[edit]

Nominated July 21; needs 32 votes by September 15 (minimum 4 votes per week)

Support

  1. Sarge Baldy 21:31, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)
  2. FT 01:07, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Switisweti 10:00, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  4. PlatinumX 07:11, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  5. Peregrine981 14:28, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  6. Joyous 22:24, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Sam [Spade] 22:33, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  8. Craig Schamp 00:03, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)
  9. Johnleemk | Talk 06:31, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  10. Rmhermen 15:58, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
  11. Sayeth 21:56, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
  12. FZ 12:37, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  13. PlasmaDragon 16:47, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  14. Shimmin 02:23, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
  15. Chris Edgemon 21:01, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  16. J3ff 00:05, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  17. Donar Reiskoffer 06:25, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  18. Pjamescowie 19:07, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  19. Austin Hair 14:14, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
  20. Satori 18:55, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
  21. RickK 04:50, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
  22. Antandrus 04:53, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  23. Djadek 13:41, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  24. LUDRAMAN | T 20:27, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  25. [[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 23:55, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  26. [[User:Mxn|Minh Nguyễn (talk, blog)]] 23:28, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  27. Linn
  28. pie4all88 00:21, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  29. Gentgeen 19:20, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  30. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 13:31, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  31. ZZ 23:25, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Not much here on such a historically important individual. Could be a fun one too. - Taxman 16:51, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • More fun than Kofi Annan. ;) Neutrality 21:52, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Nice article, a lot of hardly known facts - Switisweti 10:00, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Article in need of some NPOVing. Sure, Attila ended up sacking Rome, but he wasn't quite the barbarian Western tradition has made him out to be. --Benc 03:39, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Great topic, clearly in need of more content. Sam [Spade] 22:33, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • The article has been expanded rather substantially since being nominated. Not really a stub anymore, but there's still plenty more that could be added. Isomorphic 14:41, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Well the idea that a COTW article cannot win if it gets expanded after nominated seems a little strange. That leads to the idea that no editing should be done while being voted on, which is counterproductive. The simple solution is just to say they should meet the criteria when nominated, and editing during voting should be encouraged. After all the goal is great articles, not perfect policies. - Taxman 20:43, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
      • I don't think the issue is policy, but how much work is left to be done after the article is selected as the 'COTW'. We have the same problem with the current leader, Livestock. I think the {{COTW}} should be placed on the article, rather than the oft-ignored talkpage, to increase visibility. Hopefully, those editors interested in working on a particular candidate article will vote early and the article becomes the designated COTW sooner. Please comment on the COTW talk page. -- PFHLai 21:20, 2004 Aug 28 (UTC)
      • This issue has cropped up before... check out Wikipedia talk:Collaboration of the week/Archive 1#Errr. Maybe the policy should mention this? OTOH, m:instruction creep is a very bad thing. • Benc • 14:46, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, I've started working on this; anyone else is of course welcome to help, but it's far beyond a basic article now. —No-One Jones 14:59, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm about done. Does it still need this kind of attention? —No-One Jones 20:41, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • This should be removed as it is clearly not a stub. Alternatively are we allowed to remove our votes as the article has been so greatly changed.- SimonP 20:50, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
      • I nominated it, and with Mirv's excellent expansion today, this article is now clearly not a candidate for COTW. I believe there is now very little material the average editor could contribute without primary sources in hand. Due to that I have changed my position and I now support delisting here. - Taxman 21:15, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
        • I agree it clearly is no longer a stub, but where do we draw the line? Space Race has improved quite a bit from how it was when originally nominated for instance. (This should probably go to talk!) Tom- 23:29, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
          • Surely they should have to be a stub when nominated and any improving after nomination is encouraged. We are trying here to improve articles. LUDRAMAN | T 23:42, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
            • Agreed. Since it was a stub when nominated and it has gained many votes, we should keep it in the running until it is disqualified for lack of support. But I for one am removing my vote for support since other articles on this page are more deserving of COTW and this article is ready to go to Peer Review. Davodd 23:47, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
              • Works for me. I've removed my vote. Eventually it will expire. - Taxman 04:20, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
              • I've also removed my vote Mpolo 07:46, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Lack of votes. -- ALoan (Talk) 02:09, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Navy (4 votes after 1 week)[edit]

Nominated September 10; needs 5 votes by September 17 (minimum 5 votes per week)

Support:

  1. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 00:00, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 00:14, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Davodd 01:00, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Peregrine981 23:38, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • We have a decent article at naval warfare and we should be careful not to duplicate content between it and navy. I would suggest leaving the coverage of the technological and strategic elements of was at sea to naval warfare with navy covering only the organization and development of navies. - SimonP 00:14, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't this be better as a redirect? Ambi 08:38, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • What to? -- Graham ☺ | Talk 13:33, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Naval warfare Ambi 10:42, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • Navy covers more than naval warfare. This can go into the details of organization, social role, etc... Peregrine981 23:38, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Lack of votes. -- TPK 17:29, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales (2 votes after 1 week)[edit]

Nominated September 9; needs 5 votes by September 16 (minimum 5 votes per week)

Support:

  1. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 19:57, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. PlasmaDragon 22:48, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Jimbo has just indicated on his talk page that he will no longer oppose having a page about him in the main namespace. I think it would be great to collaborate on it.
    • It would, but it's not a stub, and does anyone really have that much more to add? Tom- 20:00, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • What next? Build statues of Him in our capital cities and name all first-born children Jimbo irrespective of their gender? The fact that there is a user with absolute power over the wikipedia really is a downer - no need to advertise it more. Blargle B Targlebo 22:08, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Lack of votes. -- TPK 17:29, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Abbey Theatre (4 votes after 1 week)[edit]

Nominated September 10; needs 5 votes by September 17 (minimum 5 votes per week)

Support:

  1. Filiocht 07:50, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 08:38, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. zoney ▓   ▒ talk 09:41, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. Palmiro 13:44, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • This is the Abbey's centenary year and it is currently in the news in Ireland because of internal convulsions, funding and artistic problems, and falling box-office. Would be nice to see it on the Main page before the centenary ends
    • I've added a todo list on the talk page if you want to suggest possible improvements. Filiocht 09:47, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • This article now extensively rewritten, so probably no longer a valid COTW candidate. Filiocht 11:23, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Lack of votes. -- TPK 17:29, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Roald Dahl (22 votes after 6 weeks)[edit]

Nominated August 6; needs 24 votes by September 17 (minimum 4 votes per week)

Support

  1. Sarge Baldy 19:06, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)
  2. UtherSRG 11:23, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. ALoan (Talk) 13:20, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  4. Dmn 19:15, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  5. Matthewmayer 20:27, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  6. Chalst 23:24, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  7. Lyellin 10:02, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
  8. FZ 12:36, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  9. Etaonish 17:08, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
  10. PlasmaDragon 16:49, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  11. Shimmin 02:24, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
  12. Djadek 13:53, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  13. LUDRAMAN | T`
  14. Sum0 00:25, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  15. [[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 23:55, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  16. PedanticallySpeaking 18:09, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
  17. MGM 19:42, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
  18. Catherine | talk 04:17, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  19. Cyopardi 16:30, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  20. Graham ☺ | Talk 16:48, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  21. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 13:31, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  22. Dmr2 14:26, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Not a stub going by actual length, but it's mostly just lists. Such an important children's writer deserves a lot better than what's there. Sarge Baldy 19:06, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Not to mention such an interesting character... Chalst 23:24, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • A well-known author like this should have more info in the wikipedia. MGM 19:42, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • He wrote at least two autobiographies! —Rory ☺ 13:25, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
    Boy and Going Solo - very good references for people editing the article. LUDRAMAN | T 18:28, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    Yep, I'm attempting to get the wealth of information in them into the article... Going Solo in particular is a great read. It makes you think, all the things that happen to this one tiny squadron in the middle of nowhere, (almost) completely forgotten by history... --Sum0 16:41, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • This is not a stub at all anymore. --Conti|✉ 19:59, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • :I suggest that those who voted withdraw their votes, this is clearly not a COTW candidate any longer in my opinion. zoney ▓   ▒ talk 13:25, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • :I suggest they leave the votes where they are [[User:Dmn|Dmn / Դմն ]] 21:54, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree with [[User:Dmn|Dmn / Դմն ]]'s suggestion

Reason for removal:

  • Lack of votes. -- TPK 17:29, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ripley's Believe It or Not! (10 votes in 3 weeks)[edit]

Nominated August 26; needs 12 votes by September 16 (minimum 4 votes per week)

Support

  1. James_possamai I'm in
  2. PFHLai 17:25, 2004 Aug 26 (UTC)
  3. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Cubaflag15.gif]] 21:04, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  4. PlasmaDragon 21:43, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  5. • Benc • 14:43, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  6. violet/riga (t) 19:27, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  7. Everyking 23:48, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  8. Yono 06:06, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  9. PedanticallySpeaking 20:02, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
  10. Chessphoon 22:24, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • A comic strip, a radio show, a TV show ... and now a chain of 27 museums around the world. Believe it or not, they deserve a better article than the short few lines we currently have there. -- PFHLai 17:25, 2004 Aug 26 (UTC)
  • The TV show is so cheesy, though... support nonetheless. • Benc • 14:43, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Lack of votes. -- TPK 17:35, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Interpreting (14 votes in 4 weeks)[edit]

Nominated August 21; needs 16 votes by September 18 (minimum 4 votes per week)

Support

  1. Farside 09:45, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  2. TPK 05:50, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:08, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)
  4. Aranel 02:28, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  5. PlasmaDragon 13:25, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  6. CheekyMonkey 11:52, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  7. Burgundavia 08:39, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
  8. Grammarian 13:50, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  9. Linn
  10. Alarm 15:58, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  11. Jonik 09:17, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  12. Taxman 03:36, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
  13. Donar Reiskoffer 08:48, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  14. Weiwensg

Comments:

  • Very important profession and one of the oldest professions in history. --Farside 09:45, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Could cover mistranslations, difficulties in communicating certain concepts, etc. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:08, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)
  • Mistranslations, difficulties in communicating certain concepts, should perhaps be the subject of a separate article (or perhaps more): Translation problems, Untranslatability, etc. Grammarian 13:54, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Not a stub at time of nomination. Should be removed. Davodd 18:19, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Lack of votes. --Conti|✉ 23:34, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Carson Daly (1 vote in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated September 11; needs 5 votes by September 18 (minimum 5 votes per week)

Support:

  1. Ashlee 00:36, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Lacks a good biography. Ashlee 08:25, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Practically unheard of outside of the US. I've only heard of him through spending far too much time on American entertainment forums...Ambi 14:14, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm a professional American media reporter and he barely registers. Then again, I'm nearly 3 times the age of the nominator. :) Davodd 16:20, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Nothing against VJs, but finding enough info about them to fill up a 'featured article' would be challenging. This may be why many wikilinks are still 'red' on the page Video jockey .... -- PFHLai 21:56, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)
  • Who? -- Graham ☺ | Talk 16:28, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Lack of votes. --Conti|✉ 23:35, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Sex pilus (1 vote in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated September 12; needs 5 votes by September 19 (minimum 5 votes per week)

Support:

  1. Sewer Surfer 20:12, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • It deserves more than 4 sentences. Without it, there would be no bacteria and their benefits. Sewer Surfer 20:49, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Not all bacteria are benficial PlasmaDragon 15:56, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Lack of votes. --Conti|✉ 23:39, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Camera (4 votes in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated September 12; needs 5 votes by September 19 (minimum 5 votes per week)

Support:

  1. blankfaze | (беседа!) 23:24, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. PedanticallySpeaking 15:49, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
  3. PlasmaDragon 15:57, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Come on, man! This article is SOOOO lacking. blankfaze | (беседа!) 23:24, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Not a stub. It could do with work, but so could lots of other articles. CotWs should be stubs at the time of nomination. —Rory ☺ 23:27, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Lack of votes. --Conti|✉ 23:39, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Politics of Wales (2 votes in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated September 13; needs 5 votes by September 20 (minimum 5 votes per week)

Support

  1. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 04:53, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. zoney ▓   ▒ talk 13:07, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comments

  • Gigantic hole in coverage. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 04:53, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Comment: Thats a bit of an exaggeration; there is already a lot of content about Welsh politics at Politics of the United Kingdom and there are many articles about Welsh political institutions and politicians. Deus Ex 17:12, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Yr wyf yn cytuno?n hollol (possibly, "I quite agree"). zoney ▓   ▒ talk 13:07, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Lack of votes. --Conti|✉ 10:00, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

John Wayne Bobbitt (1 vote in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated September 13; needs 5 votes by September 20 (minimum 5 votes per week)

Support:

  1. Mmm Mmm 05:18, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • It's awfully short and stubby for a person who attained international fame. Mmm Mmm 05:18, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Short and stubby *huh-huh* Beavis 05:21, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Lack of votes. --Conti|✉ 10:03, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

British rock (8 votes in 3 weeks)[edit]

Nominated August 31; needs 12 votes by September 21 (minimum 4 votes per week)

Support:

  1. Tuf-Kat 07:01, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
  2. PhilHibbs 17:04, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. PlasmaDragon 21:09, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  4. violet/riga (t) 18:32, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. Ludek9 15:48, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  6. [[User:Dmn|Dmn / Դմն ]] 17:08, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  7. Alarm 16:01, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  8. Suse 21:47, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Recently split from rock and roll to its own article, missing oodles of info on The Smiths, alternative rock, popular rock in between the 60s and 90s, etc. Tuf-Kat 07:01, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Although incomplete, I don't think it was a stub at time of nomination. Davodd 18:14, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Lack of votes. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:31, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Drama (7 votes after 2 weeks)[edit]

Nominated September 7; needs 10 votes by September 21 (minimum 5 votes per week)

Support

  1. Arlechinio 01:45, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. PlasmaDragon 18:12, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. LUDRAMAN | T 18:16, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. zoney ▓   ▒ talk 10:06, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. [[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 01:36, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
  6. JamesTeterenko 04:06, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  7. Lexor|Talk 13:32, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Drama, its just everywhere, TV, in the street its life, and we all need it. Just a stub, needs ENLARGING. Needs defining, and needs to have the debates about education and entertainment fully represented.
  • I listed narrative structure on pages needing attention the other day, it's a disgrace! --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 01:36, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • 66.167.253.83 01:58, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC) (contributor since May 2003): The article on drama needs a lot of editorial attention. There are blocks of useful comments, but it flows poorly, its organization is not systematic, the contributions don't share a consistent style, it is overly dependent upon a separate "see also" list, and it has a number of misspellings and punctation mistakes. As a start, one of the collaborators should review everyone's contributions and refactor. In particular, write an introductory paragraph so that the reader isn't confronted at the beginning with a TOC, particularly a TOC whose first item is "The problem with the term drama"... To reduce the "see also" list, look for ways to cleanly embed those topics into your exposition; the main article is hardly wikified and resorts to parenthetical "see ______" comments in the few cases where cross-references are made.
  • Removing support - not a stub at time of nomiation - should be removed from list. Davodd 18:12, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Lack of votes. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:31, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Pony keg (1 vote in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated September 14; needs 5 votes by September 21 (minimum 5 votes per week)

Support:

  1. Shard 04:58, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Quite short for a very common item. Shard 04:58, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Lack of votes. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:31, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's a Royal Knockout (4 votes in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated September 14; needs 5 votes by September 21 (minimum 5 votes per week)

Support:

  1. [[User:Dmn|Dmn / Դմն ]] 08:43, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. Ta bu shi da yu 11:53, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. [[User:Sverdrup|❝Sverdrup❞]] 14:23, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. Cabalamat 12:27, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • I'm sorry, but is this a joke? TPK 15:17, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC) Talk
    • Just because it's a laughably pathetic joke, doesn't mean it didn't really happen, although those involved surely wish it hadn't. Still referred to in the UK media as an example of what is wrong with the minor royals Average Earthman 10:28, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • There isn't even an article on the TV show on which this is based, It's a Knockout. I think we should concentrate on an article for It's a Knockout and mention It's a Royal Knockout as one of its special episodes.
    • Okay, I agree with that, but I still think a TV show like this isn't worth COTWing, given the other topics that can/need to be covered. TPK 17:34, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC) Talk
  • What the? I want to know more! - Ta bu shi da yu 11:53, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • a sign that most people don't know about it, making it an unsuitable cotw? --Jiang 05:43, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Trust me you don't. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 11:41, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Lack of votes. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:31, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Collaboration_of_the_week/Removed/2004/Archive_5&oldid=1090405350"