Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week/Removed/2006/Archive 2

< Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week‎ | Removed‎ | 2006

20th century music edit

Nominated on 04:13, May 16 2006 (UTC); needs 2 votes by May 23 2006.

Renominating this article. COTW has been lacking the last few weeks, and these types of articles draw a lot of attention. Please vote for 20th century music and save the cotw!!!! PDXblazers 04:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. PDXblazers 04:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Bad enough for me. --Wonderfool 12:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Avala 19:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. St. Jimmy 11:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Ynhockey (Talk) 03:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Astrokey44 14:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. RexNL 21:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Josen 20:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Flymeoutofhere 15:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Note that no other article exists for any other century of musical history, so working a lot would probably just add to Wikipedia's modernist bias (i.e. newer stuff is covered more than older stuff, which, while very understandable, shouldn't be encouraged or exacerbated) and wouldn't improve the general coverage of the history of music especially well. Speaking of which, you can probably lift most of the contents and info on 20th-century music directly from the history of music article, which probably needs a lot more work than this article does: it's got a lot of good info, but some of the sections (especially for non-Western music) are grossly deficient, covering tens of thousands of years in only a sentence or two. Very uneven stuff, and could probably use our help much more than a minor stub, which can always be expanded in the process of smoothing over the main "history" article. But in any case, not a bad nomination by any stretch of the imagination; I just think we need to keep perspective in mind somewhat, and have a definite, deliberate plan in mind for the organization of all the music-history articles while we work on this, lest our work just end up being moved to a different article anyway when the stuff becomes better-organized. Also, obviously, 20th-century music didn't occur in a vacuum, and many late 19th-century trends were merely explored more fully in the 20th century, so that's one reason a general "history of music" article has more potential to be of value even to someone who's chiefly interested in recent music. -Silence 19:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jailbreak edit

Nominated on 23:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC); needs 9 votes by February 20, 2006.

Lots of famous jailbreaks (both real and fictional) and there isn't an article? Quite surprising.

Support:

  1. violet/riga (t) 23:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. King of Hearts | (talk) 02:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Aaronwinborn 02:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Petros471 18:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 20:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Andromeda321 01:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Which to use? prison break Lotsofissues 12:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

prison break gets many more Google hits than either jail break or jailbreak. --Oldak Quill 22:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed bin Abdul Aziz edit

Nominated on 20:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC); needs 9 votes by February 22, 2006.

This is one of the Sudairi Seven, one of the richest and most powerful men in Saudi Arabia. And the article is 2 sentences long.

Support:

  1. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 20:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Darwinek 14:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Siva1979Talk to me 14:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutralitytalk 07:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jacoplane 03:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Pepsidrinka 08:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

    • I really wish it would be expanded but (historically) I have never seen articles this specific and this obscure (which is not to say it's very obscure at all) do well on COTW. gren グレン ? 08:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why not just nominate Sudairi Seven itself? It's a stub too, after all, and if it was nominated, at least a little work would probably be put into the individual articles as well. -Silence 14:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual reproduction of plants edit

Nominated on 21:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC); needs 9 votes by February 24, 2006.

A huge topic is surprisingly missing. Relevant articles (flower, seed, etc.) do exist, but there is no overview article. Compare with e.g., "vegetative reproduction" I created a nanostub, but I am a total ignoramus here.

Support:

  1. mikka (t) 21:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Siva1979Talk to me 14:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutralitytalk 07:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mgreenbe 09:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Samsara contrib talk 20:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. EncycloPetey 08:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FloNight talk 14:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Enthusiastically. The Cannabis cultivation article hints at this in places, but doesn't go into enough detail and is sometimes confusing. aa v ^ 21:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

William Penny Brookes edit

Nominated on 00:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC); needs 6 votes by 24 February 2006.

The founder of the modern Olympic Games (which happened to be held at Much Wenlock in England). This is certainly something worthy of a good article.

Support:

  1. violet/riga (t) 00:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 13:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Juppiter 20:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Silence 09:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Created article on 27 February 2008. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Islam in Europe edit

Nominated on 18:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC); needs 6 votes by February 24 2006.

This is certainly a hot-topic nowadays, and a full, unbiased description would be nice. We have Islam in France, Islam in the Netherlands, Islam in the United Kingdom, and several others, but not for Europe as a whole.

Support:

  1. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 18:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Juppiter 20:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Takbir! - Darwinek 15:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Warofdreams talk 17:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Ehouk1 11:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Keep in mind that an article like this would be a sub-article of both Islam by country and Religion in Europe—the latter of which does not even exist yet. Note also that although there are several continent-based pages on religion in general (such as Religion in Africa), there are no such continental pages at all within Category:Islam by country, so to create a page like this now without bothering to make Islam in Africa, Islam in Asia, etc. would merely cause more inconsistency. Probably the best way to handle this isn't to further a Euro-centric bias by focusing only on Islam in one continent, but instead to nominate the already-existing (but rather bare-bones, and almost entirely consisting of charts rather than prose) Islam by country for expansion, and once that page is expanded enough, for splitting into a number of sub-articles by continent, which in turn will serve as parent articles for all the Islam-by-nation articles. Likewise, working on Islam as one of several sections within a Religion in Europe article would be much more helpful than ignoring every other religion's effect on Europe. Starting from the top and working down from there is always best, as it promotes balanced, consistent, and unbiased coverage of all relevant related subjects. -Silence 18:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regardless of how we go about improving it, it's definitely a Wikipedia void. There's a lot of information that needs to be added (world religion, by regions) somehow. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 20:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't dispute that it's a void. Just that you're missing the scope of the void. We have basically no articles on "[Religion] by [continent]" on all of Wikipedia, for any religion (including Islam) and for any continent (including Europe). Arbitrarily picking a single religion and a single continent to address that issue, while completely ignoring an entire variety of article that currently seems to be lacking, will only lead to time-wasting and inconsistency. -Silence 04:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think it's timewasting to work on an arbirtrary article in a missing topic. Might as well start somewhere, and Islam in Europe seems in the news nowadays as much or more than [random other religion] in [random other continent]. One step at a time, right? – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 18:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • But what would be wrong with creating a Religion in Europe article (or stub) first, having one of the sections of that article by "Islam in Europe", and then create an article for that specific topic after enough information has been accumulated in that section to justify a daughter article? It would prevent bias and lessen uneven coverage and inconsistency and allow users to provide information on numerous different religions, not just Islam, as well as encourgaing other religion-by-continent articles being created. I agree that anything's better than nothing, but why settle for "anything" when the ideal way is to work from the top down, and to create an article from a full and comprehensive section rather than starting from scratch with a low-quality stub? -Silence 19:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Because, default religion in Europe is either Protestantism or Catholicism depending on the region. Not interesting and no need for an article. "Some countries in Europe are Catholic and some are protestant. Sometimes the two have wars. this article is a stub." The historic and present status of Islam in Europe, however, is much better capital for an article. Now, come on Silence, be like your username. Juppiter 06:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Please review WP:CIVIL; telling a fellow editor to shut up just because you disagree with him is highly counterproductive. Then review the fact that Christianity and Islam are not the only two religions that exist or have ever existed in Europe (History of the Jews in Europe is a blank page with plenty of articles linking to it, for example). Not to mention that both the majority and the minority elements in a group merit articles on Wikipedia, not just one or the other. And that I recommended making sections of a Religion in Europe article for each major religion to start with, not distinct articles, so there's no danger of any religion being a stub. And that your characterization of the entire history of religion in Europe as "Some countries in Europe are Catholic and some are protestant. Sometimes the two have wars." is rather ridiculous and offensive, not least because of the implications that Muslims in Europe, unlike Catholics and Protestants, don't have wars. Come now. -Silence 07:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great topic for COTW Juppiter 20:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that I have newly created the Religion in Europe article, which needs a lot of work to get up to acceptable quality. It, along with Islam by country, is a parent article of Islam in Europe, so it takes precedence in terms of general importance. There's no reason we can't work on both articles simultaneously, though; if there's any support, we could even nominate Religion in Europe (or one of the non-yet-existing-but-heavily-linked-to-others, like Religion in Asia or Religion in North America) for CotW. -Silence 19:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Shanti edit

Nominated on 16:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC); needs 6 votes by 26 February.

Such a great person but no article

Support:

  1. Jasminek 16:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Myki 16:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Bratschetalk 00:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Portugal in the 2000s edit

Nominated on 05:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC); needs 6 votes by March 8.

This is all laid out and ready to be written; piece of cake.

Support:

  1. Juppiter 05:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. XDarklytez 09:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Caponer 05:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

.

British West Africa edit

Nominated on 05:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC); needs 6 votes by March 8.

Would be a nice, traditional, fun history COTW

Support:

  1. Juppiter 05:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Darwinek 23:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Caponer 05:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Banana04131 00:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Look at German Wikipedia, this article could be larger. --Darwinek 23:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a paragraph with some more information. --Banana04131 00:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

.

History of molecular biology edit

Nominated on 01:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by March 6, 2006.

This is an extremely rich topic that didn't even have an article until a few days ago. It's attracted some negative attention from it's "did you know" link on the main page, and could benefit greatly from the attention of many eyes.

Support:

  1. ragesoss 01:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Samsara contrib talk 21:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Not exactly, but it's a very new and immature article that has only a tiny fraction of the content it should, so I think it fits the spirit of COTW.--ragesoss 23:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose belongs on AID Juppiter 07:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose way too long to be a stub. St jimmy 15:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biopharmaceutical edit

Nominated on 20:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by 7 March.

Pathetic stub on an important topic

Support:

  1. ike9898 20:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Victor.P.Das 21:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

paper recycling edit

Nominated on PDXblazers 17:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by March 7.[reply]

Originally nominated this for AID, but, as it needs some expansion and is only slightly more than a stub, it was suggested I nominate it here first. It is a really important process that deserves better from Wikipedia

Support:

  1. PDXblazers 17:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Avala 13:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Deryck C. 16:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Footwear edit

Nominated on 06:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by March 10, 2006.

An essential article that contains only one paragraph!

Support:

  1. Gflores Talk 06:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. St jimmy 10:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • While I think this is definitely a critical article, it definitely needs to be prettied up. Perhaps it could be put into some kind of table or chart? 161.19.64.5 08:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help edit

Nominated on 04:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by 11 March, 2006.

An extremely common term that has ittle more than two paragraphs to it. Could have so much done to it

Support:

  1. Spawn Man 04:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Deryck C. 16:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Don't see potential beyond dictdef. However, if you do want to work on this article, I suggest you have a summary section with altruism as the main article. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Twig edit

Nominated on 04:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by 11 March, 2006.

A common object found in most places. So why does it only have a stub on here? Much work could be done...

Support:

  1. Spawn Man 04:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. St jimmy 10:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Lamb edit

Nominated on 14:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by 13 March 2006.

Unbelievealy short. Much of the information could be stolen from Sheep. Is one of the most wanted stubs.

Support:

  1. St jimmy 14:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. King of Hearts | (talk) 01:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • And why would you want to duplicate that information? That just makes two places to maintain. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It wouldn't be duplicating it would be adapting the information.St jimmy 10:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm... well, the original phrase used was "could be stolen", see above. My opinion is that sheep should be nominated instead (since it's not a particularly good article either), and lamb should redirect there, incorporating all the information currently in lamb. They are the same species, and as for the gastronomical aspect, the flavour of the juvenile and adult is broadly similar. The industries and breeds may differ, but that should be in separate articles in any case. Above all, I think you need to define what exactly this article is going to be about. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other species (eg Cattle) have articles for their babies (Calf). St jimmy 12:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case, it is needed as a disambiguation page, and the article about cattle is a lot more substantial than that about sheep. I'd suggest you start by improving sheep. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • At some point I noted on the lamb article that the article isn't needed, even if it should be maintained minimally as a redirect or disambig. You can see with the article about "calf" that the article includes information about cattle and apart from that it is just dictionary definition. There is already an article "lamb (food)" to talk about lamb in a culinary context, so I say the lamb article could be ditched altogether or changed to a disambig. Same goes for calf. Donama 04:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly my point. See my earlier comment. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar Strings edit

Nominated on 15:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by 13 March 2006.

i just wrote this article and i think there is much more information out there. The world is full of guitarists and some of them must have something to add.

Support:

  1. St jimmy 15:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Deryck C. 16:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Rainbow Brite and the Star Stealer edit

Nominated on 06:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by March 19, 2006.

This page on one of my favourite movies growing up as a child hasn't moved much since I created it. Maybe a fan of this film and/or Rainbow Brite should come over and fill it in!

Support:

  1. Slgrandson 06:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Uffizi edit

Nominated on 18:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC); needs 9 votes by March 18 2006.

One of the most important art museums in the world, and a miserable stub! Compare with Palazzo Pitti, a featured article.

Support:

  1. Ham 18:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Silence 07:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Bratislav Slović 14:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Caponer 05:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Gflores Talk 05:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. PDXblazers 06:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Crna tec Gora 22:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. ImmortalGoddezz 15:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Children's film edit

Nominated on 12:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by 22 March.

The scope and range of children's movies is great and would make a brilliant exploration of children's world experiences.

Support:

  1. Robin klein 12:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. St jimmy 11:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. fantasylover12 17:23, 12 June 2006

Comments:


.

Pop art edit

Nominated on 17:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC); needs 6 votes by March 25.

One of the most important art movements of the 20th century, yet the article is basically a stub followed by a list of names. It recently received a lot of votes on the Article Improvement Drive, where it was (arguably) misfiled.

Support:

  1. Andrew Levine 17:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. RexNL 00:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Avala 19:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Silence 22:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Crna tec Gora 20:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Juan Scott 01:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from previous nomination (January 2006):

  • Note that this article is also nominated on WP:AID and it is very popular there.--Fenice 08:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This topic is quite interesting and needs a lot of work. It's something that visitors will actually click on. Osbus 23:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should this nomination be removed? It's already located at WP:AID with 14 votes. How can it be a CotW and AID nomination at the same time? Gflores Talk 17:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stubs belong on CotW, not AID. This article will be removed from AID as soon as you maniacs stop arbitrarily voting for it, and in the meantime it would make a great CotW. -Silence 22:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New comments:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Collaboration_of_the_week/Removed/2006/Archive_2&oldid=46619183"