Jump to content

Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week/Removed/2005/Archive 2

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 January 16 to January 31, 2005.

Rip Torn (1 vote in 1 week)

[edit]
Nominated January 9, 2005; needs 5 votes by January 16, 2005

Support:

  1. WizardOfTheCDrive 20:56, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Actor Rip Torn should have more than a few sentances on a movie or two he did. He has a life, you know, and has been in more than MIB.

Reason for removal

  • Not enough votes -- kaal 23:44, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Constitution Party (United States) (3 votes in 1 week)

[edit]
Nominated January 11, 2005; needs 5 votes by January 18, 2005

Support:

  1. WizardOfTheCDrive 01:00, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. ADH (t&m) 06:23, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Pyromonkeykw -Actually signed by 24.113.42.116, who I do not seriously doubt is User:Pyromonkeykw.--Pharos 08:17, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • This is a very important third party in America. And yet, there is this insufficient article on it, mainly naming former candidates and state affiliate names. We can do better than this.
  • Ewww... We have better things to spend our time on than bible-thumping fascists --Dmcdevit 22:56, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't know that they're "very important". They don't have the history of the Socialist Party or Communist Party nor do they have the votes of the Green Party or even the Libertarians. AndyL 06:06, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • "Even the Libertarians"—the third party with more elected officials than all the other ancillary parties combined. The Constitutionalists, ill-fated that their ambitions may have been, were rather the opposite of "Bible-thumping fascists," and deserve at least some consideration. Support. ADH (t&m) 06:23, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok, I might have underestimated the size of the Libertarians (though the other parties I mentioned have all done better on the presidential level) but I still don't see how the Constitutional Party is a "very important third party". AndyL 13:31, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • ADH, I wonder if your're not confusing this quite small, and quite conservative, modern political party with some other historical movement. I encourage you to read the article. As to myself, I find this topic interesting in a way as an apparently growing, but still very fringe, political movement, but I don't think it's really of enough general significance to be a COTW.--Pharos 21:00, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Oops! I didn't mean to start this debate. I was only joking when I made my ealier comment. I very much support third party and independent candidates and their fight for ballot access. I really do think this article deserves an expansion, to at least the level of the Reform Party, Libertarian Party, or Green Party. I just happen to have a very different ideological position, and have no where near the expertise to contribute. But I would still encourage others to vote for it! --Dmcdevit 22:26, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal

  • Not enough votes -- AndyL 01:53, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wild West (7 votes in 2 weeks)

[edit]
Nominated January 4, 2005; needs 10 votes by January 18, 2005

Support:

  1. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:19, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Golbez 18:48, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  3. [jon] 19:25, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. WizardOfTheCDrive 01:25, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. CunningLinguist 11:07, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. Johntex 21:02, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. Bogdan | Talk 18:01, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • I was actually looking for articles about Wanted posters from that era and the term Weird West. Not only I found none of those (btw, I'd appreciate at least a stubs on them, tnx), but I am shocked that the 'Wild West' article is in fact just a redirect to a tiny American Old West article. Such an interesting period in history (and fiction), and one that I'd expect to find well developed on Wiki... and all we have is one screen-worth of material, barely escaping the stub tag! Many related articles are poor as well, only Western movie seems to be decent. This period needs a lot of help.
Here there are a few genuine ones. (They are PD, so we can 'borrow' them in Wikipedia). Bogdan | Talk 18:10, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There would be considerable overlap between any such article and the existing one, which certainly could use expansion. Why don't we put our efforts there? In particular there a section Culture of the American Old West which could specifically deal with the "wild" aspects. In any case, the wildness was largely a myth and the name comes from Buffalo Bill's traveling stage show (in America, all devolves to showbiz!); it seems to me that an article focusing on the wildness might overdose on myth. --Dhartung | Talk 07:56, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal

  • Not enough votes -- McMullen 23:27, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Korean literature (4 votes in 1 week)

[edit]
Nominated January 11, 2005; needs 5 votes by January 18, 2005

Support:

  1. Neutralitytalk 14:27, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Jiang 08:43, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. CunningLinguist 02:55, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. olivier 06:26, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • I'm astonished that we don't have an article on this already (can we translate anything from the other-language Wikipedias?). (When we create this article, we should have a redirect from Literature of Korea). Neutralitytalk 14:27, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • I must admit I know practically nothing about this topic, and I beleive the same goes for others and that is why this has not received as much votes. However I support this topic very much and think it should definitely be expanded and helped in any way. I encourage others to vote for it too. -CunningLinguist 02:55, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal

  • Not enough votes -- McMullen 23:27, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Partitions of Poland (9 votes in 2 weeks)

[edit]
Nominated January 5, 2005; needs 10 votes by January 19, 2005

Support:

  1. KNewman 02:14, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  2. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:39, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Bogdan | Talk 13:57, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Kpjas 23:04, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Halibutt 23:14, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
  6. AndyL 23:29, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. Jeltz talk 15:41, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. Djadek 22:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. Rj 22:36, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Wow, this one is in a really bad shape. Don't be fooled by some text in the beginning. ALmost each section of the article has a huge TODO sign. We have to get down to work. KNewman 02:14, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • The article describing how the once glorious Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (now a FA, I invite you to take a look) was erased from history. Definetly needs attention. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:39, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok, I can do a map of all the partitions based on my map of the PLC. Please direct any ideas or comments to my talk page. Halibutt

Reason for removal

  • Not enough votes -- McMullen 17:49, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1970 Bhola cyclone (14 votes in 3 weeks)

[edit]
Nominated December 31, 2004; needs 15 votes by January 21, 2005

Support:

  1. Tom- 23:30, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. Bogdan | Talk 16:19, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Although I've already expanded a little and linked from 2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake which may attract attention sooner. -- Solipsist 18:10, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. brian0918™ 07:40, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. --Jiang 09:09, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. Golbez 18:48, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Sarge Baldy 06:17, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  8. CunningLinguist 11:07, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. Rmhermen 05:09, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
  10. AfCg 05:56, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  11. Djadek 22:14, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  12. Rj 22:36, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
  13. Darwin 18:40, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  14. Páll 01:06, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Most deadly cyclone ever, killed 200,000 - 500,000 Bangladesh in 1970... and has 2 lines with 36 words written about it. Tom- 23:30, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • You might also want to look at the 1991 cyclone in the same region which killed 134,000, but seems to have no article at all. -- Solipsist 18:10, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal

  • Not enough votes -- McMullen 14:46, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fourth Generation War (6 votes in 2 weeks)

[edit]
Nominated January 10, 2005; needs 10 votes by January 24, 2005

Support:

  1. CunningLinguist 21:57, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Johntex 21:02, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. WizardOfTheCDrive 01:04, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. AndyL 13:31, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Polocrunch 22:57, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. Dhartung | Talk 08:17, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • I support this article being used because I feel it is rather obscure, could use help and relates well to current events. Here is a snippet of the current article:

"Fourth Generation War is a concept defined by William S. Lind, used to describe the decentralized nature of modern warfare. The simplest definition includes any war in which one of the major participants in not a state. Fourth Generation wars are characterized by a blurring of the lines between soldier and civilian, peace and conflict, battlefield and safety. While this term is similar to terrorism and asymmetric war, it is generally broader, and indeed includes both of these concepts. In some sense, gang violence is Fourth Generation war."

  • It appears that the article as it is says it all... Am I wrong? KNewman 22:51, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • Good point. When I originally nominated the article I felt it could be expanded and I still beleive it can be, in the regards of guerilla warfare and terrorism, but it probably does not merit enough work to be a COTW candidate. So feel free to work on it but since I nominated it and am the only person to vote for it, I would like to revoke/remove this nomination(if such a thing is possible). So whoever takes it upon themselves to moderate this page, feel free to remove this nomination. -CunningLinguist 09:42, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I disagree. I think the article oversimplifies Lind's work and the place it has in conceptual military history. As it is, there are gross errors, some of which I'll try to correct immediately. But the concept is more than a glib catchphrase, and much of the collegiate-level military thinking, not only in the superpowers but elsewhere, has expanded on this work. --Dhartung | Talk 08:08, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Simply put, we can do better than that with such a simple concept--WizardOfTheCDrive 01:04, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal

  • Not enough votes -- McMullen 22:37, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Beverage Can (1 vote in 1 week)

[edit]
Nominated January 18, 2005; needs 5 votes by January 25, 2005

Support:

  1. Litefantastic 17:47, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

Reason for removal

  • Not enough votes -- McMullen 19:58, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Brazilian Navy (3 votes in 1 week)

[edit]
Nominated January 18, 2005; needs 5 votes by January 25, 2005

Support:

  1. McMullen 23:12, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. CunningLinguist 07:41, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. The bellman 07:30, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)

Comments:

  • The largest navy in Latin America has no more than a stub.

Reason for removal

  • Not enough votes -- McMullen 19:58, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Censorship of music (4 votes in 1 week)

[edit]
Nominated January 19, 2005; needs 5 votes by January 26, 2005

Support:

  1. violet/riga (t) 22:35, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Squiquifox 16:41, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. CunningLinguist 07:41, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. WizardOfTheCDrive 20:22, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Small list of possible expansion ideas at the talk page for this huge topic. violet/riga (t) 22:35, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal

  • Not enough votes -- AndyL 02:17, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Political rehabilitation (2 votes in 1 week)

[edit]
Nominated January 20, 2005; needs 5 votes by January 27, 2005

Support:

  1. KNewman 02:57, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Dhartung | Talk 18:39, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • I believe this is an important topic that should be covered in Wikipedia. It is not even mentioned on the Rehabilitation disambiguation page. KNewman 02:57, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed. The number of states where this applies may have dropped, but more than a billion people live in China where the concept is alive and well (as the Zhao Ziyang funeral issues attest) and it is an essential part of the history of the Soviet Union and Communism as well as related ideologies. --Dhartung | Talk 18:39, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal

  • Not enough votes --AndyL 02:19, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bob Matsui (11 votes in 3 weeks)

[edit]
Nominated January 9, 2005; needs 15 votes by January 30, 2005

Support:

  1. AllyUnion (talk) 06:17, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. CunningLinguist 11:07, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. WizardOfTheCDrive 21:09, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. J3ff 02:12, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Let's do a really good bio. Neutralitytalk 14:27, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
  6. AfCg 05:56, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. Wonderfool 13:24, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC).
  8. Tipu 02:37, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. Dmcdevit 23:03, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  10. abomination 06:06, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  11. XDarklytez 15:10, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • A kind hearted representative from California who's entry should be expanded a bit more. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:17, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Amen. What, should I say more? --WizardOfTheCDrive 21:09, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I also support this, he was very influential in American politics and this should be an interesting article to write. -CunningLinguist 04:52, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • It should be noted that he was interned at a Japanese camp... instead of being bitter about it, he ran for office, and eventually became a Representative for... I think it was 26 years for Sacramento. He also fought for Japanese rights, and was able to push for the bill that apologized to Japanese Americans for their internment. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:29, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • His actual name is "Robert Matsui" but everyone referred to him as "Bob Matsui". -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:30, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • i saw some program about him a few days ago. In fact, im gonna collaborate myself on this one--Wonderfool 13:24, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC).
  • Sounds like a good man and worthy for a collaboration.--abomination 06:06, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal

  • Not enough votes --McMullen 20:57, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Garífunas (4 votes in 1 week)

[edit]
Nominated January 23, 2005; needs 5 votes by January 30, 2005

Support:

  1. Squiquifox 18:02, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. CunningLinguist 00:59, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. McMullen 15:10, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Grunners 16:51, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • From the article: "The Garífunas are black people who live on the Northern Caribbean coast of Honduras and Guatemala. They speak their own Garífuna language. They are also known because of their unique dance style, called the Punta." -CunningLinguist 00:59, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • The title really ought to be Garífunas. --McMullen 15:10, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • All other articles on ethnic groups and the like miss out 'the', I'll move the article. Grunners 16:51, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal

  • Not enough votes --McMullen 20:57, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Film industry (4 votes in 1 week)

[edit]
Nominated January 23, 2005; needs 5 votes by January 30, 2005

Support:

  1. DAVODD 20:26, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
  2. CunningLinguist 00:59, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Xezbeth 15:38, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Dhartung | Talk 18:47, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

"Film industry" is ambiguous, it could refer to Polaroid and Kodak. There are categories in entertainment industry that could use work (expansion, sub-categorization and indexing). Also try studio system, and individual articles, e.g. Cinerama, Universal Pictures. Unless you ARE referring to Kodak, Agfa, et al; then try History of photography et al.Zosodada 17:48, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removal

  • Not enough votes --McMullen 20:57, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Learning (3 votes in 1 week)

[edit]
Nominated January 23, 2005; needs 5 votes by January 30, 2005

Support:

  1. 128.135.221.38 04:00, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Litefantastic 01:45, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. --bodnotbod 03:23, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Nothing but a list.

Reason for removal

  • Not enough votes --McMullen 20:57, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Collaboration_of_the_week/Removed/2005/Archive_2&oldid=1138417717"