Wikipedia:UK Wikipedians' notice board/UKCOTW/Removed

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page contains nominations from the main UK 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.

Tourism in Wales (1 vote in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated October 1, needs three votes by October 8

Support

  1. Graham ☺ | Talk 22:19, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Comments

  • Kinda scary that there is as yet no page here.-- Graham ☺ | Talk 22:19, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't think this is the best choice if the aim is to get a featured article. None of the "tourism in..." pages I looked at were very inspiring. They are often just extended lists. Angela. 23:53, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal

Football in Scotland (1 vote in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated October 1, needs three votes by October 8

Support

  1. Graham ☺ | Talk 22:19, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Comments

Reason for removal

Politics of Wales (1 vote in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated 2 October, needs three votes by 9 October

Support

  1. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 00:09, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

Comments

  • A large hole in UK coverage, I feel. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 00:09, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal

Empire Windrush (1 vote in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated 5 October, needs three votes by 12 October

Support

  1. ALoan (Talk) 17:29, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Comments

  • An unsuccessful Collaboration of the week candidate for two weeks in July, gaining 5 votes, but still an important topic in the history of multicultural Britain with a tiny stubby article. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:29, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • It's a ship... I don't really know what more you could write about it. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 23:04, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal

St. George's Day (2 votes in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated 6 October, needs three votes by 13 October

Support

  1. violet/riga (t) 21:15, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  2. User:NeilTarrant (t) 11:18, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Comments

  • Could do with at least something written about it! The Saint George article itself seems quite good, but surely Englands day (and the campaigns to boost it's recognition) are noteworthy? violet/riga (t) 21:15, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Sounds like a good idea, but note that England isn't the only area over which St. George holds sainthood (Genoa, Georgia, Anatolia...) --NeilTarrant 11:18, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Surely the article should be at St George's Day (no dot) Warofdreams 19:38, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Should have redirects from both... St. (note dot) is becoming an accepted abbreviation for Saint.--NeilTarrant 23:39, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal

Lorraine Kelly (5 votes in 2 week)[edit]

Nominated 2 October, needs six votes by 16 October

Support

  1. Graham ☺ | Talk 22:26, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  2. Derek Ross | Talk 04:53, 2004 Oct 3 (UTC)
  3. Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 10:38, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  4. [[User:Dmn|Dmn / Դմն ]] 15:54, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  5. Silverfish 00:37, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Comments

  • It is a crime that the goddess of daytime TV has no article... -- Graham ☺ | Talk 22:26, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal

Toby jug (2 votes in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated 11 October, needs three votes by 18 October

Support

  1. Graham ☺ | Talk 11:18, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  2. Silverfish 00:42, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Comments

  • Just thought this'd be an interesting one to do together. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 11:18, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal

  • Not enough votes. (removed by Steinsky 01:37, 19 Oct 2004)

Boulton and Watt (2 votes in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated 14 October, needs three votes by 21 October

Support

  1. Jerry 09:44, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  2. [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 22:46, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Comments

  • Although there are separate articles on Boulton and Watt (see links from the current stub) their collaboration, arguably the most significant of the industrial revolution, deserves a decent article. There are lots of other existing articles which could be linked to this article.

Reason for removal

  • Not enough votes. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:32, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Canterbury, Kent (7 votes in 3 weeks)[edit]

(Originally nominated as Canterbury, England)

Nominated 1 October, needs nine votes by 22 October

Support

  1. Graham ☺ | Talk 22:07, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  2. Angela. 23:53, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Keith Edkins 06:29, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  4. Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 10:38, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  5. CheekyMonkey 20:00, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  6. AlexG 17:58, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  7. Picapica 21:43, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Comments

  • Page recently went through WP:COTW but was withdrawn for lack of votes. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 22:07, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Do we have anybody who lives there and can fill in on the current culture - stuff that isn't in books? --Keith Edkins 06:29, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I live in Canterbury, not sure what I could add about culture that isn't already written down in books though. CheekyMonkey 20:00, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately my internet access will be little to non-existant in the next 10 days. And just hours before Canterbury might be chosen as current UKCOTW - bleah. CheekyMonkey 17:58, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I wonder if Canterbury, Kent would be a better name for it than Canterbury, England? -- 217.41.241.203 11:55, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Agreed, 'C, Kent' is closer to WP standard. --Steinsky 19:14, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Why does the vote target keep moving higher and later every time we get to it? Is this vandalism?--Keith Edkins 21:20, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • No it's following the standard practice used at WP:COTW. On 10th October the article with the highest number of votes gets selected; in the meantime setting a target number of votes for it to achieve means that articles are not listed here indefinitely. The reason the target has been raised to nine is because the six votes have already been achieved. If you think this practice is silly let me know and I'll revert the targets back to one week on each candidate. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 21:43, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • I guess I can live with it, although it's very confusing that all the articles are being judged on different days of the week. On a point of etiquette, is it considered bad manners to work on articles listed on this page before they do, or don't, get voted in?--Keith Edkins 15:15, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • It is confusing a lot of people so I might change it to be honest. No it's not considered bad etiquette at all, but please leave us something to do when it is the collaboration! -- Graham ☺ | Talk 21:27, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal

British Virgin Islands (3 vote in 2 weeks)[edit]

Nominated October 9, needs six votes by October 23

Support

  1. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 22:45, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 09:49, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. Silverfish 00:39, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Comments

  • Pathetic. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 22:45, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal

Children in Need (3 votes in 2 weeks)[edit]

Nominated October 16, needs six votes by October 30

Support

  1. Graham ☺ | Talk 15:49, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  2. Joe D 16:26, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. [[User:Norm|Norm]] 00:09, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Comments

  • Only just created today. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 15:50, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal

Culture of England (1 vote in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated 31 October, needs three votes by 7 November

Support

  1. Graham ☺ | Talk 02:08, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comments

  • Something to get our teeth into. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 02:08, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • This is UKCOTW - what about Culture of the United Kingdom, which is not brilliant, or Culture of Wales, Culture of Scotland, or Culture of Northern Ireland? Shouldn't we start with UK and work down? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:51, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • If you think we should do one of the others first then nominate it. My own feeling is though that if I nominated Culture of the United Kingdom at WP:COTW it would be rejected for not being a stub - should we have the same guideline here or is nominating an article that long ok? -- Graham ☺ | Talk 15:13, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • I knew you'd say that and I may just do so :) I think the rule ought to be roughly the same as WP:COTW, although, given the traffic here, we could afford to be a bit less rigid and (I'll say this quietly, and don't quote me) the rule in WP:COTW is really intended to put the frighteners on people to stop them nominating something that is clearly inappropriate, and is more honoured in the breach than the observance anyway: nominated articles rarely get rejected out of hand unless they are clearly not stubby. Culture of the United Kingdom is not really a stub, I suppose, particularly by reference to the 1,000 character limit, but it nowhere near a full treatment - one section of overview, a table of bank holidays, and a list of links. By way of comparison, British military history is also quite long in terms of characters, but it is almost content-free. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:33, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • Thanks for calling me predicatble, I'll take that as a compliment. What you raise here is a very good point, and I'm on the verge of bending the rules myself, seeing how few articles we have in nominations at the moment, and that is dragging one or two of the more popular ones back out of /Removed and keeping them here semi-permanently, i.e. doing away with the three votes per week thing, or reducing it, or just clearing away the ones that are just inappropriate. I am intereste in what other people think of this, though it might be advisable bringing it up in talk rather than here. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 15:44, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
          • I think we should keep the N-votes-per-week rule for two reasons (i) to prevent the list of nominations getting stale, and (ii) because listing articles on a page like this usually has the effect of encouraging people to work on them even if they are not selected as the Collaboration of the Week. Perhaps the number of votes required should be reduced to 2 per week? In any event, there is no objection to re-nominating previous unsuccessful candidates if they still meet the criteria - I've been known to do it on WP:COTW myself, and some of my nominees here (including British military history, IIRC) came from there too. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:15, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal

  • Not enough votes. -- Joe D (t) 11:40, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC) [and ALoan (Talk) 11:45, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)]

Religion in the United Kingdom (4 votes in 2 weeks)[edit]

Nominated 25 October, needs six votes by 8 November

Support

  1. ALoan (Talk) 12:41, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  2. Joe D (t) 15:18, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 19:29, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Graham ☺ | Talk 22:10, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comments

  • Ridiculous that this is a red link. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:41, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal

  • Not enough votes. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:30, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Glasgow patter (2 votes in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated 1 November, needs three votes by 8 November

Support

  1. Joe D (t) 13:34, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. ALoan (Talk) 14:51, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comments

  • I'm not from Glasgow or anywhere near there, but this was mentioned in the VFD for Glasgow slang. I think we should merge them, there must be lots to say about the history? Joe D (t) 13:34, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal

  • Not enough votes. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:30, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Traffic warden (2 votes in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated 8 November, needs three votes by 15 November

Support

  1. ALoan (Talk) 17:38, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. Graham ☺ | Talk 00:27, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comments

Reason for removal: Note enough votes. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 12:48, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Albert Square (2 votes in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated 8 November, needs three votes by 15 November

Support

  1. ALoan (Talk) 17:38, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. Graham ☺ | Talk 00:30, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comments

  • Quite a short stub: is there much enthusiasm for popular culture out there? EastEnders is a bit longer, but mostly cast list. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:38, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I added the cast list from the BBC website, though I don't know how many in the 'present' section are actually current cast members. I've been going through (slowly) creating pages for those that I can find lots of info on, but there's a fair few for whom this is their only acting experience. Still with Christopher Parker attempting suicide today, I've got something to add to at least one article... Would EastEnders make a better nomination, or not? -- Graham ☺ | Talk 00:30, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal Not enough votes. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 12:48, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bedfordshire (4 votes in 3 weeks)[edit]

Nominated November 15, needs six votes by November 29

Support

  1. Graham ☺ | Talk 01:50, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. Keith Edkins 08:53, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. Warofdreams 12:38, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. Joe D (t) 00:08, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comments

  • I'm intrigued as to what we can make of this as a community: a relatively short sample of the UK county articles. My own efforts at Buckinghamshire and others efforts at other counties have produced interesting results, I'd be fascinated to see how, for example, the Geology of, Geography of and History of links go and just how far one of these pages can expand. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 01:50, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal

Drover (1 vote in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated 28 November, needs three votes by 5 December

Support

  1. violet/riga (t) 12:34, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comments

  • Just made this tiny stub. Quite a tradition in Wales I believe and the external links at the article should help it be expanded quite easily. violet/riga (t) 12:34, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal

Template:Former British colonies (1 vote in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated January 25, 2005; needs three votes by February 1, 2005

Support:

  1. Instantnood — 12:30, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • It needs people to help expand the list.
  • Does a template really qualify as a COTW? McMullen 15:08, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Please note that this is currently on WP:TFD and, in my opinion, doesn't qualify as a COTW or even an acceptable template (category or list maybe). violet/riga (t) 23:21, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • This is not a stub. It shouldn't be considered here. To expand the list, please check out British Empire#Extent. -- PFHLai 03:36, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

Reason for removal


Thames House (MI5 headquarters)[edit]

Nominated 27 January, needs three votes by 3 February

Support

  1. Grunners 20:22, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 20:52, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. PopUpPirate 15:09, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • Began this brief article, which is nothing compared to the article on the MI6 headquarters. Unfortuantly I know little about it other than its location. Grunners 20:22, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal

Time expired.

The Duke of Edinburgh's Award[edit]

Nominated 3 February, needs three votes by 10 February

Support

  1. Grunners 02:45, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. (though it's official name according to [1] is The Duke of Edinburgh's Award) -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 02:51, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • Hugely popular organisation, and not even a stub! Grunners 02:45, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal

Time expired.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:UK_Wikipedians%27_notice_board/UKCOTW/Removed&oldid=16812433"