Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week/Removed/2005/Archive 3

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 February 1 to February 28, 2005.

Template:Former British colonies (not a stub)[edit]

Nominated January 25, 2005; needs 5 votes by February 1, 2005

Support:

  1. Instantnood

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:

  • Illegal submission - not a stub --McMullen 20:57, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

History of painting (12 votes in 3 weeks)[edit]

Nominated January 10, 2005; needs 15 votes by January 31, 2005

Support:

  1. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:19, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. WizardOfTheCDrive 22:58, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. AndyL 13:31, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Djadek 22:11, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Polocrunch 22:56, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. olivier 06:26, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Rj 22:36, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Darwin 18:40, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. Arunram 17:13, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  10. ✏ Sverdrup 12:21, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  11. Sketchee 13:17, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  12. Trevor macinnis 18:30, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • I am not the biggest fan of painting art, but honestly, the current *list* is pathetic - it is not even complete! Entire ancient and medieval sections are blank. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:19, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I have this painfully huge text book "The History of Art"—weighs about as much as your average watermelon— I can probably haul it to the computer for a bit for this. :) --Sketchee 13:17, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Boring. Ich bin Warm - Kronecker Delta 15:31, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Not enough votes --McMullen 20:12, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cultural history of war (2 votes in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated January 24, 2005; needs 5 votes by January 31, 2005

Support:

  1. Wonderfool 10:42, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. CunningLinguist 12:11, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

Reason for removal:

  • Not enough votes --McMullen 20:12, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Frank Frazetta (3 votes in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated January 24, 2005; needs 5 votes by January 31, 2005

Support:

  1.  ALKIVAR™ 19:49, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Sketchee 12:49, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  3. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:19, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Extremely famous fantasy artist, has brief bio, no images, and a very limited list of works. For a guy who illustrated/painted for more than 50 years, there HAS to be something we can do to beef this up. In particular some sort of a fairuse/pd image of Frank, and perhaps one or two of his illustrations (if we can find stuff thats legit to use)  ALKIVAR™ 19:49, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I hear ya, but it's a self-reciprocating problem: if none of us know who he is, none of us can help. -Litefantastic 01:47, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Ever heard of conan the barbarian? he's the guy who made him famous before Arnold got the role. Most fantasy movies in the 1970s and 1980s used him for inspiration.  ALKIVAR™ 02:14, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Alki, have you tried Wikipedia:Pages needing attention or even, go crazy :-), Wikipedia:Peer review? The problem with this type of article is not that it shouldn't be better represented — nobody's arguing against that — but that it's not a stub, and not a topic the community as a whole should look into to spare our encyclopedia public ridicule. :-) CotW is not so much for "beefing up" articles as it is for pounding out articles on major topics that basically have little to nothing ytvfdi'okwsjkl;lkjhgfdsa now. While Frank Frazetta could do with improvement, it's not exactly a woefully incojutrfcvbn;louytfdmplete article either. (And as for images: Wikipedia:Requested pictures.) We have better outlets for this type of task. JRM 12:41, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)
I did add him to requested pictures (you probably overlooked him on a page thats EXTREMELY long). I didnt feel tjkhdxdcv;lp9ihere was enough to really work with to nominate it for Peer review (and Peer review is extremely busy). as for pages needing attention, I forgot about that one as I think do most Wikipedianshfdsxc';jfcdxhj :) I still feel this is the appropriate outlet. Its also likely the only way its going to gain much attention/help since the others are swamped.  ALKIVAR™ 18:35, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
*sigh* True enough. I've said it before, and I wont say it again: wikis just don't work. :-) Bah, screw all these special pages. I'm going to back to editing everything individually. :-P JRM 09:25, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
  • I know nothing about him, but I could read up. --Sketchee 12:49, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • I started this articl and would love to see it boofed up. Someone could even contact his sons for permission to reproduce some images. It could only help their business! — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:19, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. For the reasons stated above: COTW is intended to flesh out stubs and create articles that are missing. This is already an extensive article, albeit one that could easily stand improvement. Use Wikipedia:Cleanup, Wikipedia:Requests for expansion, or Wikipedia:Pages needing attention for this type of project. Saying that "most Wikipedians" forget about these other project pages is no excuse; misusing COTW because you think it gets more attention ought to be strongly discouraged and sets a poor example for the future. This is not an urgent matter; place it where it belongs and someone with personal knowledge or resources (e.g. a Frazetta compilation) will eventually come along. --Dhartung | Talk 16:58, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Not enough votes --McMullen 20:12, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Western Europe (1 vote in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated January 25, 2005; needs 5 votes by February 1, 2005

Support:

  1. Dmcdevit 22:42, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • I was a little taken aback to see this tiny article, figuring the English Wikipedia's pretty much got all the major Western topics fairly well covered. This, I am sure, can be hugely expanded, and we are all pretty knowledgeable here.--Dmcdevit 22:42, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • It is a little difficult to write article for any possible division of Europe. What does Wester Europe mean? I have seen it in a lot of meaning. The nations enlighted in the map on that article are the one which were (and are) allied to US (or not allied but in US-favor) at the time of the European division between US side and USSR side. But a lot of other division could be found: mediterranea state, state part of the European Union, of the forme MECCA or EEC, allied to NATO, repubblic state in Europe vs. Monarchy state, and so on. IMHO it is not even clear what Western Europe is, how can an article be writtenAnyFile 20:49, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Just because it is not clear doesn't mean we can't write an article about it. First of all, there are plenty of countries that are definitely defined as within Western Europe. It's not like we have no India article just because Kashmir is disputed. Plus the controversies or incertainties are reasons to write the article, and these concerns should be included in the article.

Reason for removal:

  • Not enough votes --McMullen 00:26, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

East European Plain (1 vote in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated January 26, 2005; needs 5 votes by February 2, 2005

Support:

  1. KNewman 02:18, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • I am truly surprised there's not even a geostub on this one.

Reason for removal:

  • Not enough votes --McMullen 17:40, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hostage (3 votes in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated January 26, 2005; needs 5 votes by February 2, 2005

Support:

  1. Wonderfool 11:50, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. CunningLinguist 11:25, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. WizardOfTheCDrive 15:56, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

Reason for removal:

  • Not enough votes --McMullen 17:40, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hieroglyph (1 vote in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated January 26, 2005; needs 5 votes by February 2, 2005

Support:

  1.  ALKIVAR™ 18:55, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • I am SHOCKED to see this puny stub for Hieroglyph. It doesnt even mention what they stand for, or give examples!  ALKIVAR™ 18:55, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Please see Egyptian hieroglyph, which is linked to at the bottom of that page. Quite frankly, any 'general' idea of hieroglyphs, including the Maya civilization writing system or other unrelated writing systems is rather contrived, and I'm not sure this page Hieroglyph serves any real purpose at all. Perhaps it should be a redirect to Egyptian hieroglyph (which itself, by the way, would be better named Egyptian hieroglyphics, only because that form is more common) which might mention the Maya system in a small disambig at the top.--Pharos 02:34, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Not enough votes --McMullen 17:40, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Papal army (3 votes in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated January 27, 2005; needs 5 votes by February 3, 2005

Support:

  1. Bantman 05:33, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  2. CunningLinguist 11:25, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Dmcdevit 23:42, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Over a long period of history (>1000 yrs) the pope has raised armies for specific purposes, or kept a standing army for defense of the Catholic church and advancement of the church's interests. I was shocked to find while writing Wars of Castro that Papal army doesn't exist! I think it would be fascinating to track the origins, uses through history, and eventual disbandment of military forces assembled by and for the Catholic church. The papal army plays a big part in dozens of important events in the history of Europe; I think it's a big hole in Wikipedia's coverage of history (which is truly quite spotty). Bantman 05:33, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
The army was a normal army, as the whole Papal State was a temporary normal state. It had not particular aim in defense of the Catholic church. It was in defence (and enlargament) of the Papal State. Of course the Pope had a lots of influence in politics and wars for a lots of years, and a lot of time he influenced the armies of many countries (e.g the Crusade. Consider that usually the force was made of mercenares. Todays the Vaticans/Holy See has a little army for the protection of the Pope and other Vatican citizen, often shown in ceriomonies, wearing old costumes, that is called Switzerlad Guards AnyFile 21:04, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC). This is just to clarify what you said, but an article could be written anyways AnyFile 20:54, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Not enough votes --McMullen 03:35, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Renaissance philosophy (2 votes in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated January 27, 2005; needs 5 votes by February 3, 2005

Support:

  1. Dmcdevit 17:28, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. WizardOfTheCDrive 02:22, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • The shortness of this article surprised me. After all philosophy was basically the basis the Renaissance. And considering its impact on the West, and therefore the world, ever since, we should make this page a good one.--Dmcdevit 17:28, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Not enough votes --McMullen 03:35, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Paris Peace Conference, 1919 (23 votes in 5 weeks)[edit]

Nominated December 29, 2004; needs 25 votes by February 2, 2005

Support:

  1. AndyL 23:18, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. RoboAction 05:39, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. brian0918™ 05:59, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  4. Smoddy | Talk 18:12, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Trevor macinnis 03:37, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. KNewman 14:01, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  7. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:30, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. Joolz 01:52, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. Pmeisel 16:23, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  10. CunningLinguist 09:46, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  11. Johntex 21:02, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  12. AfCg 05:56, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  13. Wombat 02:37, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
  14. Djadek 22:16, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  15. Rj 22:36, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
  16. kaal 23:38, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  17. Dmcdevit 03:14, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  18. PedanticallySpeaking 18:05, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
  19. Darwin 18:40, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  20. Páll 01:06, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  21. Pyromonkeykw
  22. ral315 00:06, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  23. WizardOfTheCDrive 01:17, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • There's been a major award winning book on the conference, Paris 1919 by Margaret Macmillian but we have barely a paragraph.
  • Absolutely; needs a lot of work, but this is an important event of our recent histoy.
  • Is especially relevant with reference to the current collabortation, the League of Nations. Smoddy | Talk 18:12, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I've added some stuff in the article and also invite you to vote for the Washington Naval Conference on the bottom of this page. KNewman 19:09, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Not enough votes --AndyL 14:17, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Arctic (7 votes in 2 weeks)[edit]

Nominated January 22, 2005; needs 10 votes by February 5, 2005

Support:

  1. KNewman 04:44, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
  2. brian0918™ 17:48, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Trevor macinnis 01:31, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. ExplorerCDT 16:31, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. GuloGuloGulo 02:47, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  6. user:zanimum 01 Feb 2005
  7. Warofdreams 12:22, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • While searching for some info on Polar stations (which I thought of nominating first), I found out that the Arctic article needs a lot of work (history of formation, discovery and exploration, climate, geology, nature, landscape, international treaties regarding the Arctic, research stations etc.). KNewman 04:44, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Short. But may not be a stub. DAVODD 20:32, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Been there, know the history of exploration well enough, willing to put in my chips. —ExplorerCDT 16:31, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Not enough votes. AndyL 15:35, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Iraq (1 votes in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated January 30, 2005; needs 5 votes by February 6, 2005

Support:

  1. Djadek 12:26, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • —
  • The article clearly doesn't belong here. It should be moved to the Update section (assuming that Djadek had the elections in mind). KNewman 16:04, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • I didn't - I meant the article on the country. Djadek 18:08, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Not a stub.--Martewa 16:34, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Not enough votes. AndyL 15:35, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cartoon character (8 votes in 2 weeks)[edit]

Nominated January 23, 2005; needs 10 votes by February 6, 2005

Support:

  1. violet/riga (t) 00:14, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Litefantastic 12:40, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. --Circeus 20:57, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  4. WizardOfTheCDrive 15:48, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. --Pmeisel 22:30, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. GuloGuloGulo 02:46, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  7. ral315 00:06, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  8. user:zanimum 01 Feb 2005

Comments:

Reason for removal:

  • Not enough votes.AndyL 15:42, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Odwalla (1 vote in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated February 1, 2005; needs 5 votes by February 8, 2005

Support:

  1. LostLeviathan 01:38, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • The current article sounds like an ad for Odwalla. However, these juices are an important part of the American landscape; they can be found at nearly all college campuses, including many that have banned other Coca-Cola products due to perceive human rights violations. The company's history is also interesting, including the controversy that erupted when their non-pasteurized apple juice caused the death of a young boy, and the decision to be bought by Coca-Cola. There's plenty of potential here.
  • Potential for what? I don't see an article that would be any longer. What this article needs is an NPOV combing, not a collaboration. --Dhartung | Talk 22:15, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Not enough votes.AndyL 00:31, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jerry Goldsmith (1 vote in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated February 1, 2005; needs 5 votes by February 8, 2005

Support:

  1. AllyUnion (talk) 13:57, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

Reason for removal:

  • Not enough votes.AndyL 00:31, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ottmar Mergenthaler (2 votes in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated February 1, 2005; needs 5 votes by February 8, 2005

Support:

  1. mervyn 16:32, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. – flamuraiTM 03:40, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Stubby biography for the inventor of the linotype machine -- one of the greatest achievements of 19th century precision automated machinery. And wasn't there a Hollywood movie about him?

Reason for removal:

  • Not enough votes.AndyL 00:31, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Human rights in Myanmar (11 votes in 3 weeks)[edit]

Nominated January 19, 2005; needs 15 votes by February 9, 2005

Support:

  1. Alarm 12:00, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. PedanticallySpeaking 18:05, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Pharos 20:20, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. CunningLinguist 07:41, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Warofdreams 11:51, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. Neutralitytalk 01:49, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Jiang 23:07, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. Grunners 16:42, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. Bogdan | Talk 10:37, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  10. AndyL 00:34, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  11. Dmcdevit 04:14, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  1. It might help if someone started the article. AndyL 00:34, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Hint taken. I've made a start. Basically, it's an attempt to create a general structure, mainly using quotes from human rights organizations (that would benefit from being rephrased), and a list of possible sources. At least it's something to work from. Any help (including copyediting) would be appreciated. / Alarm 19:24, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Not enough votes. --McMullen 02:30, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Red Guards (Finland) (6 votes in 2 weeks)[edit]

Nominated January 26, 2005; needs 10 votes by February 9, 2005

Support:

  1. PFHLai 06:56, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
  2. CunningLinguist 11:25, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Grunners 05:13, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Dmcdevit 23:41, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. AndyL 00:33, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. WizardOfTheCDrive 22:13, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • White Guard (Finland) has a good Wikipage, why is Red Guards (Finland) a one-liner ? Are we anti-socialist ? :) -- PFHLai 06:56, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
  • Why is it 'white guard' but 'red guards'? I'd suggest renaming the latter to avoid discrepancies. Grunners 05:13, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Not enough votes. --McMullen 02:30, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom (4 votes in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated February 2, 2005; needs 5 votes by February 9, 2005

Support:

  1. Sarge Baldy 21:08, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Dhartung | Talk 20:31, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. CunningLinguist 21:46, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. AndyL 01:50, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • This march with several hundred thousand participants was one of the highlights of the U.S. social reforms of the 1960s, capped by Martin Luther King's I Have A Dream speech. Sadly, right now all it has is a couple relevant paragraphs. Sarge Baldy 21:08, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Does seem drastically short given the political importance of this event. There have been many marches on Washington, but this is one of the few that had lasting impact. --Dhartung | Talk 20:31, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Not enough votes. --McMullen 02:30, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Great Lakes Storm of 1913 (1 vote in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated February 2, 2005; needs 5 votes by February 9, 2005

Support:

  1. brian0918™ 21:29, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • A four-day blizzard with hurricane-force winds, it completely destroyed 19 ships, forced 19 others to be stranded, and killed 250+ people. These same "November gale" winds have caused many devastating storms on the Great Lakes over the years (including sinking the SS Edmund Fitzgerald). I've already written up a short intro paragraph, with references, external links, and categories in Notepad, but haven't uploaded it yet. I also made this map showing where wrecks have occurred. If this doesn't get many votes, treat it more like a request for others to collaborate with -- just leave me a message if you'd like to help with it. Thanks. --brian0918™ 21:29, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I've started a draft of the article at Great Lakes Storm of 1913/Temp, which is acting as a listing of the sources I have found and will eventually use, and as a collection of parts that have been completed and will probably be used in the final article. Feel free to modify this temporary page, and once it gets more content, it can be moved to the actual page. Thanks. --brian0918™ 03:50, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Take this as a compliment: your temp article seems excellent even without the daily timeline. This is probably not an article that a collaboration will improve. I suggest putting what you have in there and putting a tag for it in Peer Review. --Dhartung | Talk 20:35, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I put it here because there's really no other way to find people who are interested in helping make an article. --brian0918™ 21:50, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Actually there are MANY ways and you should familiarize yourself with them! Wikipedia:Village_pump_(assistance) is just one of many; Peer Review is intended to attract people with knowledge in a particular category, but sometimes patience is required. When a topic requires offline sources, especially, it's overly optimistic to expect the motley crew of COTW to do a great job. Most of us are generalists. Note that simply working on an article is often enough to get it noticed. --Dhartung | Talk 02:24, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Moved to actual article. --brian0918™ 02:07, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Not enough votes. --McMullen 02:30, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

John Creasey (1 vote in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated February 2, 2005; needs 5 votes by February 9, 2005

Support:

  1. Squiquifox 23:53, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Prolific English thriller writer 1932-1973
    • You should probably take this over to the Writing COTW. -Litefantastic 14:26, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Not enough votes. --McMullen 02:30, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mercury Theatre (3 votes in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated February 2, 2005; needs 5 votes by February 9, 2005

Support:

  1. Dhartung | Talk 20:38, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. AndyL 07:38, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. CunningLinguist 05:04, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • This is just sad. The program/troupe that produced the infamous The War of the Worlds broadcast and included such now-day famous actors as Orson Welles and Joseph Cotten doesn’t even have a stub. Anything of this importance should have better than this.
  • Agreed. Very influential, so many famous connections. We can certainly fill this in to at least a basic article. --Dhartung | Talk 20:38, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Not enough votes. --McMullen 02:30, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wanted poster (7 votes in 2 weeks)[edit]

Nominated January 27, 2005; needs 10 votes by February 10, 2005

Support:

  1. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:46, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Bantman
  3. user:zanimum 01 Feb 2005 (I'm really interested in this as a graphic design student)
  4. Litefantastic 01:49, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. Kostja 17:00, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. ZayZayEM 03:00, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. Darwinek 9:48, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • The police&crime sections or Wiki are generally among those least developed. We have just 7 FAs about related matters - related, because they are all about law theory and trials (see Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Law). The lack of wanted poster article is just one of many examples of this problem. Btw, wanted is red most wanted redirects to Special:Wantedpages. Shame. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:46, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Hasn't this article been nominated already? It looks familiar... KNewman 21:25, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
      • You're thinking of the removed nomination for Wild West, I suspect, with the same nominator, which did begin with a quest for wanted posters. It does seem like a topic worth of inclusion, but likely a short article. --Dhartung | Talk 23:22, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Not enough votes. --McMullen 19:51, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

442nd Regimental Combat Team (6 votes in 2 weeks)[edit]

Nominated January 28, 2005; needs 10 votes by February 11, 2005

Support:

  1. J3ff 01:21, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. CunningLinguist 08:42, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Dhartung | Talk 23:00, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Jun-Dai 22:02, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. Thunderbolt16 22:51, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  6. AndyL 01:50, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • I was surprised to discover that this article does not exist. The 442nd fought in World War II and became the most decorated unit in US military history. [1] The 442nd was composed of Japanese Americans, many of whom volunteered from internment camps. This was at a time when the US government had classified Japanese Americans as "enemy aliens", despite that they were American citizens. — J3ff 01:21, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Great idea. I'll start a stub. --Dhartung | Talk 23:00, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • no longer stub...withdrew my vote--Jiang 05:43, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Not enough votes. --McMullen 19:51, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cultural impact of World War I (14 votes in 4 weeks)[edit]

Nominated January 22, 2005; needs 15 votes by February 12, 2005

Support:

  1. 119 03:24, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. CunningLinguist 11:14, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Litefantastic 14:48, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Grunners 16:36, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Hippalus 11:48, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
  6. ExplorerCDT 16:05, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. --Pmeisel 22:33, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. ral315 00:06, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  9. user:zanimum 01 Feb 2005
  10. AndyL 01:50, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  11. Bogdan | Talk 15:03, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  12. Tothebarricades.tk 23:12, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  13. Darwinek 17:27, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  14. Allen3 13:20, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • The First World War is often cited as a monumental shift in Western culture, yet we have no article. In fact, a text search for "culture" shows no matches in World War I! 119 03:24, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I've never heard it cited as such, but I think it should be. -Litefantastic 14:48, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • The First World War is often called the break between 19th century life and the rest of the 20th century. It spawned "the lost generation", the "roaring '20s", Dadaism, Modernism; featured massive propaganda; killed unheard of numbers of people in a new, almost industrial way; was a "total war"; and is generally credited with a huge loss of confidence in ideology and civil institutions in the West. Prominent books: Rites of Spring: The Great War and the Birth of the Modern Age; The Great War and Modern Memory; European Culture in the Great War: The Arts, Entertainment and Propaganda, 1914-1918. 119 21:04, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • So should this really be Cultural impact of World War I? Filiocht 13:24, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • That sounds a far better title. Grunners 16:36, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • The article would need to discuss the situation before and during World War I still, but I suppose that matches better. 119 19:23, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd agree that an article is necessary, but that is why I'm working on the Weimar Culture article where much of Europe's postwar cultural shift happened. Also there are articles on the Lost Generation, New Objectivity, Expressionism, Dadaism, etc. and several other parts of the 1919-1933 period, culturally, politically, socially, etc. Certainly they need work, but an article like this would provide a good umbrella to link up the myriad of articles regarding this general subject, other than that and it would become nothing more than an overlap.—ExplorerCDT 16:05, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Not enough votes. --119 10:05, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

César Chávez (13 votes in 3 weeks)[edit]

Nominated January 23, 2005; needs 15 votes by February 13, 2005

Support:

  1. Gentgeen 03:36, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Pmeisel 03:56, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. CunningLinguist 11:14, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Dmcdevit 17:40, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. AndyL 02:14, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. J3ff 01:29, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. Zosodada 18:07, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. ral315 00:06, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Neutralitytalk 06:59, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  10. 172 11:38, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  11. Djadek 01:06, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  12. Lockeownzj00 05:41, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • The leader of the civil rights movement for Hispanic-Americans doesn't even get one screen of text? Shame. Gentgeen 03:36, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Significant labor leader worthy of documentation.Pmeisel 03:56, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • VERY worthy civil rights/labor leader, LOTS to write about. Very deserving of our attention. CunningLinguist 11:14, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Short, but not a stub. DAVODD 20:28, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Not enough votes. - AndyL 14:05, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Learning styles (8 votes in 2 weeks)[edit]

Nominated January 29, 2005; needs 10 votes by February 12, 2005

Support:

  1. Singpolyma 13:24, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  2. --Westendgirl 04:09, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Szyslak 05:00, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Hippalus 19:50, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Mjklin 23:46, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
  6. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:34, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. CunningLinguist 05:04, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  8. AnyFile 17:02, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • There really isn't much information there, and it has (in my opinion) more potential than 'Learning'
  • Agree. This article could be expanded to include child and adult learning styles, the Kolb Learning Styles inventory, and much more information on visual, auditory and kinesthetic learners. It could provide research-based suggestions for teaching people with difference learning styles. Wikipedians may even be able to learn something from the research -- perhaps we'd write articles differently. --Westendgirl 04:09, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I believe Howard Gardner at Harvard has done a lot with learning styles in the sense of different "intelligences". We should probably work that in somehow. Mjklin 13:35, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Not enough votes. - AndyL 14:08, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Erik Erikson (1 vote in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated February 5, 2005; needs 5 votes by February 12, 2005

Support:

  1. 83.72.182.10 18:32, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

Reason for removal:

  • Not enough votes. -AndyL 14:26, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

Nominated February 6, 2005; needs 5 votes by February 13, 2005

Support

  1. Grunners 05:02, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. CunningLinguist 21:46, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • The feast day of an importnat patron saint of many nations around the world, and nothing. The article on Saint George himself is well written but has little on the day. As the patron saint of England amongst others, there should be much to write about, including the move to have the day (April 23) recognised as a bank holiday. Grunners 05:02, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Not enough votes. -----AndyL 14:30, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Two Babylons (1 vote in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated February 6, 2005; needs 5 votes by February 13, 2005

Support

  1. Ta bu shi da yu 09:35, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • Please add new nominations to the bottom of the page. --McMullen 13:49, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Very far from a stub. 119 16:26, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Not enough votes. -----AndyL 14:30, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Monrovia (6 votes in 2 weeks)[edit]

Nominated January 31, 2005; needs 10 votes by February 14, 2005

Support:

  1. PFHLai 18:03, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
  2. Dmcdevit 23:26, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. --Circeus 20:04, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 07:03, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  5. ZayZayEM 03:02, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. bbx 01:42, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

Reason for removal:

  • Not enough votes. -----18:59, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Baby boomer (4 votes in 1 week()[edit]

Nominated February 8, 2005; needs 5 votes by February 15, 2005

Support:

  1. DAVODD 03:57, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  2. CunningLinguist 04:22, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. Circeus 20:08, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Dhartung | Talk 00:22, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • — I can't believe such a huge population group is only a stub here. DAVODD 03:57, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • The cultural importance can't be overstated and they're going to be influential for many years to come yet. We may want to have some discussion of how this is the generation that helped create the idea of defined generations, as meta as that sounds. --Dhartung | Talk 00:22, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd support the more general baby boom article as a COTW. violet/riga (t) 22:21, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I think this term is too ambiguous, as it refers to any one that is a member of any baby boom. If you are referring to the baby boom after WWII, which I think is what everyone voted for, a more appropriate page exists at "Post-World War II baby boom." --Dmcdevit 22:32, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • No, it isn't ambiguous in U.S. usage, where the term is ubiquitous and universally understood to be specific. The page you cite is about the statistical fact and characteristics of that baby boom. Baby boomer, on the other hand, is a cultural marker with some highly loaded stereotypes and political significance. --Dhartung | Talk 05:09, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • What other "baby booms" have there been? — J3ff 23:45, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • At least thousands, actually. There is usually at least minor baby boom after every major war, like WWI also, they also come after harvests (cyclically in Egypt, because of the Nile's variable inundations for example), after plagues have passed, such as the population boom after the Black Death, and sometimes even because of government policy, as characterized by the Nazi's emphasis on having children. Another notable baby boom that even has an article is the Year 2000 baby boom. That's why there is a general page at baby boom, since it is a variable term, and why I thought baby boomer is also ambiguous unless as a general topic.--Dmcdevit 00:17, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • See Generation X or Silent Generation for similar articles on other generations. DAVODD 00:10, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Not enough votes. -----AndyL 03:50, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Turkish War of Independence[edit]

Nominated February 8, 2005; needs 5 votes by February 15, 2005

Support:

  1. --nixie 07:43, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. Darwinek 9:48, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Lockeownzj00 05:39, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • —At this point the article is just a time line, but the topic has potenital to become a featured article--nixie 07:43, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

English Wikipedia[edit]

Nominated February 8, 2005; needs 5 votes by February 15, 2005

Support:

  1. --Circeus 18:50, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  2. CunningLinguist 07:20, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul PiotrusTalk 14:12, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. WizardOfTheCDrive 17:42, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Just found it. While I'm not sure what can be done (considering Wikipedia), I definitely believes a stub is unacceptable. --Circeus 18:50, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Good one. We could write about the history of this particular Wikipedia since it is pretty special in regards to the entire Wiki project. -CunningLinguist 07:20, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • not a topic of wide-ranging significance...and dont see how it would be much different from History of Wikipedia given that the English wikipedia is most popular and original wikipedia. perhaps redirect this? --Jiang 08:47, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I love the Wikipedia, but I think we should be improving our coverage of the world outside, not navel gazing. (I do that on the 4 forums I'm subscribed to elsewhere). --bodnotbod 09:52, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

Joseph Cotten[edit]

Nominated February 8, 2005; needs 5 votes by February 15, 2005

Support:

  1. WizardOfTheCDrive 01:05, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • I am just depressed by this. He is just given a couple of sentances on the movies he's been in. How about his work in the RADIO business? Maybe just his LIFE? Much to be said, yet not enough of it.

Reason for removal:

Maharishi Mahesh Yogi[edit]

Nominated February 8, 2005; needs 5 votes by February 15, 2005

Support:

  1. WizardOfTheCDrive 01:05, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. CunningLinguist 07:20, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • The founder of the Natural Law Party, the created of TM, a teacher to many, including George Harison The Beatles (they get a mention, not much else though)... and this is what he gets?
  • I dunno, there could be some expansion but COTW doesn't seem like the way to get it. --Dhartung | Talk 18:25, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

Culture of Scotland[edit]

Nominated February 2, 2005; needs 10 votes by February 16, 2005
Support
  1. Dmcdevit 03:34, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 07:01, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Dhartung | Talk 20:29, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Phil | Talk 11:40, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Tothebarricades.tk 19:15, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Smooth Henry 09:44, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • I am surprised this doesn't even exist. I assume Scotland has culture :) -- this has plenty of potential --Dmcdevit 03:34, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • There's probably stuff about Scots culture scattered all over the place but not collected together—you're right, this could be fun :-) --Phil | Talk 11:40, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, the "Culture" section of Scotland on its own is already a considerable article, far from a stub.--Pharos 11:45, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • That's a good point, it will be a good place to start for the article. I think all cultures deserve a good, comprehensive article, one that is substantial enough merit its own page (ie. all cultures should have their own extensive "Culture of x" page). Scotland needs one.--Dmcdevit 20:56, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I've copied the "Culture" section of Scotland to Culture of Scotland; it's certainly not a stub, but it could be worked on further.--Pharos 21:56, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

Serf (1 vote in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated February 11, 2005; needs 5 votes by February 18, 2005

Support:

  1. CunningLinguist 20:51, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • I started expanding the section on Russia [2], but then realized that the article needs a complete overhaul. Our articles on this subject in general are terribly underdeveloped. It is 172 03:25, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Not a stub. Use one of the other improvement processes. --Dhartung | Talk 09:33, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

Modernization (2 votes in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated February 11, 2005; needs 5 votes by February 18, 2005

Support:

  1. brian0918™ 03:58, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. CunningLinguist 20:51, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Either this, or your generic History of modernization, Modernization throughout history, or some other variation.
  • This is a monumental topic like none other. The volume of academic literature on the subject (modernization theory and other schools of thought on development) is mind-blowing. It is a subject that its difficult enough for a tenured graduate professor teaching it as a course to manage. I suggest that the article stay simple and generic (like in other encyclopedias), as this is really for the realm of professional social sciences, not the reporting of information in encyclopedias. 172 03:38, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • There's no reason an uncollaboration couldn't make it into a well-formed medium-sized article which points to relevant topics but isn't merely a list. --brian0918™ 03:44, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • My concern is not size. My concern is the difficulty posed by handling huge volumes of often-competing academic literature on theory. This article is probably a better project for a small number of social scientists than the entire community as a COW. If it is adopted as a COW, we will need to recruit social scientists (e.g., Slrubenstein and Stirling Newberry) to develop the outline and closely monitor the development of the article. (I'd work in that capacity if I had the time.) 172 03:56, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • At least we could say for once that an article on wikipedia was definitely created by an expert in the field. --brian0918™ 04:02, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

Nonintervention (3 votes in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated February 11, 2005; needs 5 votes by February 18, 2005

Support:

  1. brian0918™ 04:06, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. CunningLinguist 20:51, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. KNewman 14:44, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Several routes could be taken, including the traditional "history of..."
  • Do you mean nonintervention as one of the principles of the international law? KNewman 23:34, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • We should probably choose between Nonintervention and Noninterference (in internal affairs, that is). Or they should be linked with each another. Aren't these pretty much the same? KNewman 23:50, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

Human rights in Iran (3 votes in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated February 11, 2005; needs 5 votes by February 18, 2005

Support:

  1. Dmcdevit 04:47, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. Pharos 23:35, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. Dhartung | Talk 23:11, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • This is a very timely subject, considering the current goings-on in the US and UN. Inspired by the failed (but deserving) nomination for Human rights in Myanmar. I figure here we have a more well-known and publicized but just as needed topic that needs to be addressed. Especially timely in light of the recent Amnesty International campaign to stop child executions in Iran, see "Iran: No more empty promises – no more child executions". --Dmcdevit 04:47, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Just a comment: Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advocacy groups, no matter how just the cause may be. 172 03:27, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't understand what you mean, this is definitely an article that can be NPOV, no one can deny the facts of the situation in Iran. So I don't see what your worry is.
    • The Myanmar article was improved just by being nominated. I don't think the situation in Iran is as grievous, but it's certainly a country where despite an overtly democratic system there are abuses of individual liberty including political arrests and closure of newspapers (and lately, harassment of bloggers). There are also issues endemic to Islamic societies such as enforcement of public morals by religious police. This is clearly an article which should exist; it doesn't need to be an advocacy piece. Indeed, I don't see why there couldn't be a Human rights in ____ for any country in the world.--Dhartung | Talk 23:11, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • I totally agree with you. My purpose in nominating this article was not because I perceived it as worse than any other, and certainly not to support any Bush spin, but only because I thought that since it has been getting a lot of attention, it will be a much looked-up-for article, and so make a necessary addition to the WP. --Dmcdevit 22:49, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

Slovakia Summit 2005 (2 votes in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated February 11, 2005; needs 5 votes by February 18, 2005

Support:

  1. Wonderfool (talk) (contribs) (email) 09:33, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. RoboAction 06:53, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC) Bush&Putin... indubitably

Comments:

  • I saw this in the Current Events pages with a red link, so therefore it should be written
  • I would wait until the summit is concluded before nominating this for COTW. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:12, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I disagree in waiting till the end; I think this article will illustrate how well Wikipedia operates (i.e. people who are searching for information about this upcoming event may already find information here at Wikipedia before it all happens - hence, more respect)
  • Also one should note this is the first time that a sitting President of the United States will visit Slovakia - George W. Bush is going to be the first; and isn't this his first visit out of the country for a while? (that is with the campaign and the current 2nd term underway?)... and to add Vladimir Putin to the mix will make this event very monumental ~ RoboAction 06:53, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll tell you straight up that there is no way this article is going to be the COTW before the summit, i.e. beginning next week, February 20. There are three very well-supported candidates in line that will probably keep COTW busy through March. COTW is just not responsive enough to handle a current events topic. --Dhartung | Talk 09:44, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

Evil genius (7 votes in 2 weeks)[edit]

Nominated February 6, 2005; needs 10 votes by February 20, 2005

Support:

  1. AndyL 03:09, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. Historie Pete 16:38, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. ZayZayEM 03:08, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. – flamuraiTM 03:18, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Litefantastic 12:17, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. ExplorerCDT 03:49, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. GuloGuloGulo 21:08, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Boo-hahahahaha!
  • Distinctions from:
    • Mad scientist
    • Villain
    • Supervillain
  • Need to be made, or a merging of these articles--ZayZayEM 03:08, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • If René Descartes believed in him (discussed in RD's Meditations on the First Philosophy), and that he actively sought out to decieve us from knowing the true nature of reality, the evil genius deserves a better article...better, that is, than the current reference to comic book genre villians and a picture of Dr. Evil. —ExplorerCDT 03:49, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, come on. I mean, all I know about is comedy, and that's where I've busied myself. But surely this isn't deserving of the attention. Priorities! --bodnotbod 09:35, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

Word (linguistics) (1 vote in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated February 13, 2005; needs 5 votes by February 20, 2005

Support:

  1. bodnotbod 09:22, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Found via word. I think the problem is apparent. On the downside, as far as it being a COTW, this may be a very specialist area that would not benefit from a mass influx of input. I certainly wouldn't know where to begin, and I've studied English Literature. I'm baffled. Dunno what to say, really. I just stumbled on it and thought "yuck". I leave it open to the community. --bodnotbod 09:22, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • This is more likely to be helped by a specialist, via Wikipedia:Peer Review. --Dhartung | Talk 09:39, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree that this article is inappropriate for COTW. However, the question 'what is a word?' is meaningful, and more difficult to answer than one would expect. I'll give this stub a little attention: then that's a collaboration of you and me! Gareth Hughes 18:29, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I've just rewritten the article; I hope you like it! Gareth Hughes 21:50, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

Industrialisation[edit]

Nominated February 13, 2005; needs 5 votes by February 20, 2005

Support:

  1. 119 09:47, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. AllyUnion (talk) 16:10, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. CunningLinguist 00:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • 1798 characters/261 words--over the character limit set forth above, but this is still a very small, inadequate article and well-suited to COTW for its critical importance and broad scope. 119 09:47, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Not enough votes. 119 03:12, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mozambique (9 votes in 2 weeks)[edit]

Nominated February 7, 2005; needs 10 votes by February 21, 2005

Support:

  1. Dmcdevit 04:10, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. Evil Monkey∴Hello 04:12, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Pharos 01:14, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Tothebarricades.tk 02:58, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. ExplorerCDT 03:51, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. XED.talk 23:34, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. --Locarno 16:46, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  8. Gareth Hughes 12:40, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  9. AndyL 15:30, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • A country of 20 million has about a paragraph total. This basic page about a whole country deserves to be expanded. As a point of comparison, Belgium has a population of 10 million; I'm sure we all think they should have equivalent articles. Tons of potential here!--Dmcdevit 04:10, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Maybe WP:CSBCOTW can be alerted to this article. - XED.talk 23:34, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • This nomination should be withdrawn, considering how the article has improved while being voted on. --Circeus 19:01, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

Confederate States Army (6 votes in 2 weeks)[edit]

Nominated February 8, 2005; needs 10 votes by February 22, 2005

Support:

  1. I was shocked when I saw it's just a stub.Darwinek 8:53, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. AndyL 03:04, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ryan Anderson 18:00, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. ADH (t&m) 00:04, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
  5. AllyUnion (talk) 06:14, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. --Pmeisel 01:02, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • It's very important part of American history. Just look at the article for Union Army--Darwinek 8:53, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • No it's not really a stub, but it's very short article. And value of it is now very low. That's a fact. Darwinek 22:53, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • In which case, it isn't a candidate for COTW, reading:
Please only nominate articles which don't currently exist or are stubs. (Two paragraphs or less of information or fewer than 1,000 characters)
And it more demands a nomination for Requests for expansion - I agree it's shorter than it ought to be, and deserves lots of attention; but it isn't technically a COTW candidate. - Estel (talk) 09:18, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not really a stub... - Estel (talk) 13:34, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd vote to support, but I wonder how well it's covered in related articles. --Dhartung | Talk 00:24, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • It really was just a stub before I added a bit of detail, such as the subordinate armies, commanders, etc. I think it should remain relatively small, keeping details of battles, generals, etc, in other articles. And it definitely needs to avoid all the bitter controversies already in American Civil War. big_hal 00:01, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • This has, previously failed COTW. I recall nominating the same article months ago. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:15, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

Ancient history (6 votes in 2 weeks)[edit]

Nominated February 8, 2005; needs 10 votes by February 22, 2005

Support:

  1. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:03, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. CunningLinguist 07:20, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. Dmcdevit 22:08, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. gadfium 00:36, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. Sean Curtin 03:38, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
  6. AndyL 15:30, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Looks like a perfect CotW candidate for me - and on a *very* broad scope. This is not 'history of something'. This is *the* history. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:03, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I can see this becoming a narrative history with many summary paragraphs pointing to already-extant articles. I suggest some poking around to see what should be there and what's missing. --Dhartung | Talk 00:27, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I tentatively support this. It could become a great historical narrative or we might bite off more than we chew. I think if we end up doing this, we would need at least 2 weeks to do it. -CunningLinguist 07:20, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • A lot of "what links here" re: ancient could be used to help build this one up or even build a series of articles (Ancient music, ancient warfare, etc). -Sean Curtin 03:38, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

Spanish poetry (7 votes in 2 weeks)[edit]

Nominated February 8, 2005; needs 10 votes by February 22, 2005

Support:

  1. Tothebarricades.tk 03:24, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. CunningLinguist 07:20, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. Filiocht 09:01, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 15:01, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Lockeownzj00 05:38, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Darwinek 16:30, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. Leyanese 05:55, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

Reason for removal:

Technology versus Evolution (2 votes in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated February 14, 2005; needs 5 votes by February 21, 2005

Support:

  1. Mkeller 23:10, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. CunningLinguist 07:07, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • This article would deal with the negative effects of technology on the power of natural selection and also the ability of technology to replace the mechanism of evolution.Mkeller 23:10, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm sure there's a better title. I expect you're talking about the contraceptive pill etc? - XED.talk 23:16, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Awful, awful idea. Besides, I left my tinfoil hat in my flying car. --Dhartung | Talk 23:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Your whole understanding of natural selection and evolution is completely wrong. --brian0918™ 00:46, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • It's a terrible idea, biased and flawed

Reason for removal:

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

Nominated February 15, 2005; needs 5 votes by February 22, 2005

Support:

  1. Neutralitytalk 05:16, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Why? This is far from a stub. 119 05:27, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Ineligible. This is what an article looks like after a COTW -- fleshed out well beyond nothing, but still in need of cleanup and expansion. From this point on Wikipedia:Peer review is a better place to seek assistance. --Dhartung | Talk 09:39, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

Geography of Madagascar (1 vote in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated February 16, 2005; needs 5 votes by February 22, 2005

Support:

  1. Norman Rogers\talk 14:30, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Madagascar is the fourth largest island in the world. The geography article for it is a substub. This is a massive hole in our geography coverage. Norman Rogers\talk 14:30, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • There is a surprisingly decent article on the ecoregions of Madagascar, though, with much geographic content. Perhaps there should be a Geography and ecoregions of Madagascar article combining all aspects.--Pharos 21:10, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Are there commonly "ecoregion" round-up articles? My sense is that that should normally be folded into a Geography round-up. --Dhartung | Talk 21:15, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • I agree, only that there is a lot of biological content in the ecoregions article that normally would not go under strict geography.--Pharos 21:18, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

Pay toilet (2 votes in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated February 15, 2005; needs 5 votes by February 22, 2005

Support:

  1. Masterhomer 20:57, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. Bogdan | Talk 23:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Pay toilets have a great impact on society today. Yet this article doesn't even exist? I want to know the history of pay toilets, I want to know the country with the most pay toilets, I want to know where the pay toilet money goes to, and I want lots of pictures! Masterhomer 20:57, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm amused, but I don't see this being a big article that is actually "needed". --Dhartung | Talk 21:17, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Here's a technical correctness issue: one no longer pays specifically for the toilets, but for the bathroom facilities in general, at least in most pay toilets I'm familiar with. This is illegal in the US (pay toilets existed till the '70s, I believe) but common in Europe. Portajohns go a reasonable 20 to 30 cents, while in some places (train stations) they can go upward of 1.00 euro. I'm curious, by the way, how do pay toilets "have a great impact on society"? Sure, it's annoying as hell to have to fork over 0.50 euro to take a leak, but minor annoyance doesn't count as "great impact", so there must be something I'm not aware of. EventHorizon talk 04:19, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry, not that it has much to do with the voting for this, but I was confused by your statement. Are you saying that the definition of what people pay for at public bathrooms has shifted from paying for toilets topaying for bathroom facilities, or are you saying there are no pay toilets in the US anymore? Just curious because Im pretty sure Ive run across pay toilets in San Francisco and New York...-CunningLinguist 06:51, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

Morgellons (1 vote in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated February 15, 2005; needs 5 votes by February 22, 2005

Support:

  1. CunningLinguist 06:53, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Title should probably be Morgellons Disease. Ive recently heard A LOT about this, and it seems fascinating. If you dont know what it is yet, google for "Morgellons Disease", itll explain it far better than me. Whether this is a real emergin disease or mass delusion its fascinating nonetheless and may turn out to be an interesting article. -CunningLinguist 06:53, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I've expanded this article about as far as it probably can go -- at least until there's a change in the medical opinion. --Dhartung | Talk 10:08, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Right-O. Thank you for expanding, I'll keep an eye on it too. -CunningLinguist 09:23, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

Police oppression (8 votes in 2 weeks)[edit]

Nominated February 9, 2005; needs 10 votes by February 23, 2005

Support:

  1. Lockeownzj00 04:17, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. AnyFile 17:05, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. KNewman 18:21, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Sarge Baldy 17:02, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
  5. CunningLinguist 20:51, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. AndyL 14:10, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. Leyanese 05:55, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  8. Sentience 22:57, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • for such a huge concept that has caused so many to be outraged (or not, as it were), and with SUCH a long history dating back to even before modern times, I definitely think this should be expanded upon.
  • Yeah, could be put into Police brutality. Since police are agents of the State, large scale acts of repression should be discussed more broadly; acts where police are acting mostly as individuals, like the beating of Rodney King, should be discussed in Police brutality.

edit: this could also be applied to Police brutality.Lockeownzj00 04:17, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Would anyone mind it if I changed the vote for COW to police brutality (a common term here in the U.S.)? If so, I would be able to vote for it. Otherwise, it is hopelessly POV. 172 02:03, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • The police brutality article need expansion, which should be possible within POV guidelines. IMO the broader issue could be addressed as the use of police to deny civil liberties, another article which needs expansion.--Sentience 22:57, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps someone can try to write a distinct police oppression article (which is a broader concept than police bruatlity and implies the widening of police powers in something short of a police state. AndyL 02:14, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • This is a tricky topic. I think there's police oppression which takes place separate from police brutality (which is a subtopic). I also think there's police oppression outside of police states. --Dhartung | Talk 23:13, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit confused... When we talk about police, do we also mean FBI, ATF, DEA and the like? If yes, we should mention Waco, Ruby Ridge, MOVE and tons of other incidents. KNewman 01:47, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • I was assuming police in the broadest sense, i.e. any legally authorized domestic force. Sarge Baldy 02:41, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

Metaphysical objectivism (1 vote in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated February 16, 2005; needs 5 votes by February 23, 2005

Support:

  1. brian0918™ 01:29, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Something so important has only one line (the rest about probability is a random subtopic and shouldn't really count, considering how much info is at Subject (philosophy)) --brian0918™ 01:29, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

Friendship (2 votes in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated February 16, 2005; needs 5 votes by February 23, 2005

Support:

  1. Vorpalbla
  2. sars 10:10, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • I can't believe there is not yet an article on this subject.

--Vorpalbla

  • I've voted though I'm not sure what you're hoping to be written. I'll be interested to see what people come up with if this goes further.sars 10:10, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm guessing it could be about biological and evolutionary imperatives for social alliances, non-sexual bonding rituals, &c. — RJH 20:53, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

History of religion (4 votes in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated February 16, 2005; needs 5 votes by February 23, 2005

Support:

  1. brian0918™ 03:12, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. CunningLinguist 06:51, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. AndyL 15:30, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Mondhir 03:08, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Currently a short list of mostly red links. It redirects to History of religions, which may be a different topic. History is covered in Religion, so maybe it's alright as is. --brian0918™ 03:12, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

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

Nominated February 16, 2005; needs 5 votes by February 23, 2005

Support:

  1. Dmcdevit 23:09, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. Eleassar777 18:10, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • I clicked on this link from one of the military histories nominated recently, having noticed it is, rightly, always in the "See Also" of any military history. Needless to say, I was pretty surprised that we've done the military histories of France and the Soviet Union recently, and possibly the US, Switzerland or Wales in the future, and yet the general article is in such disrepair. This page should describe general tactics, technology, strategy, etc. --Dmcdevit 23:09, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Agree. --Eleassar777 18:10, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Be careful that this article does not duplicate the substantial history of warfare series. - SimonP 18:18, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
        • Good point

Reason for removal:

History of backpack design (1 vote in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated February 16, 2005; needs 5 votes by February 23, 2005

Support:

  1. SmarterChild 23:58, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • As a backpack engineer I am fascinated by the history/evolution of backpacks/bookbags and think an article to document this history would be good. I would contribute. Please vote for this if you like backpack history. -SmarterChild 23:58, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • This is a topic that warrants, at most, a section under backpack. COTW is not a "requests for articles" page. Please read the top of the page before nominating.--Dhartung | Talk 00:18, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Agree with Dhartung 100%. KNewman 02:51, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • What in the top part of this page guides potential editors to not put up "requests for articles" and where does it direct them to the appropriate place? Hyacinth 03:48, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

Spinning Rims (3 votes in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated February 16, 2005; needs 5 votes by February 23, 2005

Support:

  1. SmarterChild 00:01, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. Da 'Sco Mon 03:03, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. CunningLinguist 09:23, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • I can not beleive there is not a page for Spinning Rims/"Spinners". This is a huge phenomenon in the youth-subculture and has quickly become a multi-million-dollar industry. There are even spinning rim shoes now and spinning rim necklaces. This seems to be the future of rims and its a disservice to Wikipedia to overlook this portion of rim-design. -SmarterChild 00:01, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Riiiight.... --brian0918™ 00:11, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • COTW is not a "requests for articles" page. This is not the sort of thing that a COTW is good at. Please do read the top of the page before making a nomination. --Dhartung | Talk 00:15, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • This would be very interesting. I support it. -CunningLinguist 09:23, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Is this a brand name (Spinning Rims) or a general name (Spinning rim)?

Reason for removal:

Single-sex education (3 votes in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated February 17, 2005; needs 5 votes by February 24, 2005

Support:

  1. Philthecow 00:44, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  2. sars 10:20, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 23:24, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Single-sex education is an influence on the lives of many, and it seems like an article that could be taken in a lot of different directions. We need a history of, reasons for, reasons against, different cultural perspectives on it, a list of institutions that practice it... I think this deserves much more than a tiny stub. Philthecow 00:44, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • It's certainly enjoying a resurgence. --Dhartung | Talk 09:19, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Not enough votes. --AndyL 02:19, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Retrorocket (1 vote in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated February 17, 2005; needs 5 votes by February 24, 2005

Support:

  1. Litefantastic 00:46, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:'

  • Found this using the random-page thingy. I'm not sure how valid a topic it would be. -Litefantastic 00:46, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Not enough votes. --AndyL 02:19, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Career college (1 vote in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated February 17, 2005; needs 5 votes by February 24, 2005

Support:

  1. – flamurai (t) 01:01, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • There's a lot of potential for this article beyond a basic history. Career colleges have been oft-criticized as diploma mills, and it would be interesting to seek out relevant arguments and pull them together into a solid article. – flamurai (t) 01:01, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Not enough votes. --AndyL 02:19, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Capital punishment in China (12 votes in 3 weeks)[edit]

Nominated February 3, 2005; needs 15 votes by February 24, 2005

Support:

  1. Evil Monkey∴Hello? 04:09, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 07:01, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Warofdreams 12:46, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Sundar 13:28, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Dhartung | Talk 20:41, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Centralman 08:23, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Grunners 05:05, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  8. AndyL 01:50, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  9. Jiang 02:33, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  10. Lockeownzj00 02:53, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  11. --Wonderfool (talk) (contribs) (email) 11:03, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  12. XED.talk 23:30, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • More executions in China than any other nation. Warofdreams 12:46, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Definitely a topic deserving of a fuller treatment. For cryin' out loud, Canada has a more extensive article! I wouldn't say we have to equal the extensiveness of the article for the U.S., but we should certainly use it as a model. --Dhartung | Talk 20:41, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree, along with the U.S., China executes the largest number of people, so the articles should be pretty closely matched. However, there's not the same domestic opposition, nor the debate over the execution of minors. Even so, this should be pretty expansive. Grunners 05:05, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • people have been beheaded in China for thousands of years...don't forget that too. --Jiang 02:33, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Not enough votes. --AndyL 02:22, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


African American literature (7 votes in 2 weeks)[edit]

Nominated February 10, 2005; needs 10 votes by February 24, 2005

Support:

  1. Sketchee 23:23, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  2. CunningLinguist 20:51, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. Darwinek 16:30, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. ExplorerCDT 17:06, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. Leyanese 20:02, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. 119 22:10, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. Tothebarricades.tk 03:27, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Well, it doesn't exist yet but could make an interesting article if a few knowledgable editors could touch upon it. I've touched upon some of the Category:African American culture articles, but most need more cleanup, research and knowledge. :) --Sketchee 23:23, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • I know quite a bit about this and could contribute. I feel its an important article to have too. -CunningLinguist 20:51, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd be glad to lend a hand on this, I've done a lot of work in rehabilitating what was a pathetic article on the Harlem Renaissance and I see that the AAL article needs a monumental effort to get it off the ground. —ExplorerCDT 17:06, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Not enough votes. --AndyL 02:25, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Norman Borlaug (14 votes in 3 weeks)[edit]

Nominated February 4, 2005; needs 15 votes by February 25, 2005

Support:

  1. brian0918™ 03:59, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. Evil Monkey∴Hello? 04:25, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
  3. kaal 20:35, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Casito 17:50, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. Everyking 21:36, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Joy [shallot] 23:38, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. --nixie 00:32, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  8. Dominus 16:14, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  9. --Chris Edgemon 05:32, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  10. ExplorerCDT 03:43, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  11. XED.talk 23:22, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  12. sars 10:00, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  13. →mathx314(talk)(email) 21:52, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  14. RSpeer 01:40, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • This man literally saved over a Billion lives, and all he gets is a short intro? It seems like Collaborations have focused almost exclusively on people killing people; how about changing this for once? There's an informative webpage on him here. Get to work people! --brian0918™ 03:59, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Agreed that he has been a major force in the twentieth century, but he's also a significant part of the reason why this world is heading rapidly towards the brink of destruction at the hands of overpopulation. Feed these people! Malthus be damned! —ExplorerCDT 03:43, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Sounds like some bad reasoning going on there, but go ahead and believe it. :) --brian0918™ 03:54, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • While I was agreeing with your efforts to make a more comprehensive and informative article on Mr. Borlaug, I was establishing the cynic's view of his notability just for the sake of shock value. —ExplorerCDT 04:14, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • Allllll-righty then. --Dhartung | Talk 19:03, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Never heard of him - XED.talk 23:22, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

Military history of Wales (6 votes in 2 weeks)[edit]

Nominated February 11, 2005; needs 10 votes by February 25, 2005

Support:

  1. Neutralitytalk 03:34, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Chirpy 23:01, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Dhartung | Talk 10:01, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Dmcdevit 17:40, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. ExplorerCDT 18:01, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Devari 14:58, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Another great idea. From the Romans, to the Anglo-Saxons ... a little-known period compared to the histories of Ireland and Scotland. --Dhartung | Talk 10:01, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Agreed...but even before the Romans under Claudius (who took about 35-40 years to subjugate the Cymru)...the Celts go back centuries earlier. Now if only someone could tell me how the LL is pronounced in Llwyelyn. —ExplorerCDT 18:01, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • But this history can encompass even more than the ancient and medieval Wales. It could discuss the contributions of Welsh soldiers to every British war since, and its important military-industrial centers that helped support Britain during the wars of the last century. There's much more potential then it would seem at first glance.--Dmcdevit 22:59, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

History of philosophy (5 votes in 2 weeks)[edit]

Nominated February 11, 2005; needs 10 votes by February 25, 2005

Support:

  1. brian0918™ 04:17, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. Dmcdevit 04:50, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. CunningLinguist 20:51, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Eleassar777 18:12, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. Gareth Hughes 12:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

Reason for removal:

Russian serfdom (6 votes in 2 weeks)[edit]

Nominated February 11, 2005; needs 10 votes by February 25, 2005

Support:

  1. Also, when I was working on the above aritcle, I noted that an article on Russian serfdom would be an important daughter article. [3] 172 03:25, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. Dmcdevit 19:32, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. CunningLinguist 20:51, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 03:37, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Dhartung | Talk 09:38, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. KNewman 14:43, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Great idea. This is important context for the cultural and political system in Russia for 100's of years. Plus it's a good lead-in to modern Russia, the Revolution, and eventually the Cold War. It colors so much of subsequent history that it definitely needs an article. --Dmcdevit 19:32, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • An excellent idea. The legal history alone would be extensive. Serfdom in almost every other country is a distant memory, but in Russia there are still people just one generation removed. (Perhaps in one of those reputed long-lived areas with a yogurt diet, there are even living serfs!) --Dhartung | Talk 09:38, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Assuming they were born on the day of abolition, that would make them only about 140 years old :) --Dmcdevit 17:36, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm gonna add some info on the origins of serfdom in Russia tonight. I would really appreciate it if someone could take a look at my grammar and style. KNewman 13:43, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

Mooning (2 votes in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated February 19, 2005; needs 5 votes by February 26, 2005

Support:

  1. Eloquence* 10:59, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Litefantastic 00:22, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Surely much more can be said about this practice. Where did it originate? Who are the most famous "moonies"? Let's get this to featured article quality until April 1!--Eloquence*

Reason for removal:

Copyright Act of 1976 (7 votes in 2 weeks)[edit]

Nominated February 13, 2005; needs 10 votes by February 27, 2005

Support:

  1. AllyUnion (talk) 16:08, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. Leyanese 20:01, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. Litefantastic 23:25, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. CunningLinguist 00:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. Shimmin 16:58, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
  6. ✏ OvenFresh² 01:04, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. wiccanhot 23:07, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • I think it's important to have a full article on this. For historic and legal reasons. -- AllyUnion (talk) 16:08, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Collaboration_of_the_week/Removed/2005/Archive_3&oldid=1136101405"