Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week/Removed/2004/Archive 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

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 December 1 to December 15, 2004.

Contents

[edit] National Socialist Party of America (1 vote in 1 week)

Nominated November 24; needs 5 votes by December 1

Support:

  1. KNewman 14:17, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • This article doesn't even exist, which is kind of weird. Wikipedia has big articles on the Communist Party of America, Socialist Party of America, Socialist Labor Party of America, Democratic Socialists of America and Green Party (United States), let alone the Democratic Party (United States) and Republican Party (United States). But the National Socialist Party of America is not written (there's only a paragraph on the American Nazi Party, which will probably have to merge with the nominated one). KNewman 14:17, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • I've written a stub but I'm not sure there's enough info out there to justify a much longer article. The only major event in the party's history seems to be its intended march on Skokie Illinois (which perhaps deserves an article of its own) but I can't find anything on the party's existence after that incident; it seems to have collapsed in 1980 when its leader was convicted of child molestation. AndyL 17:40, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • This is just one of a plethora of splinter parties. I doubt there's much we can add to what's there (though I see a couple of tweaks I can make). Don't compare it with longstanding, electorally active groups such as the DSA, which do deserve lengthy articles. On the other hand it does have an historically worthy reason for inclusion as a separate article, not as part of a longer American Nazism round-up. After this migrates off the COTW list, perhaps it should be left with an attention tag. --Dhartung | Talk 02:58, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Lack of votes. -- AndyL 14:25, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet military fronts (WWII) (10 votes in 3 weeks)

Nominated November 10, 2004; needs 15 votes by December 1, 2004

Support:

  1. KNewman 18:39, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
  2. AndyL 13:55, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:53, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. NeoJustin 01:23, Nov 14 2004 (UTC)
  5. Ornil 04:50, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  6. enceladus 05:37, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
  7. --Martin Wisse 11:38, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  8. FZ 05:40, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  9. Spangineer 16:24, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
  10. --119 17:41, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • I was so surprised to find out that there is no detailed information about the Soviet military fronts during the Great Patriotic War in Wikipedia! I believe this article deserves attention. It could also be called Soviet military fronts (Great Patriotic War), or something like that. KNewman 18:39, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't that article be Eastern Front (WWII)? AndyL 02:37, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Actually, the Eastern Front article has only a few references to the Soviet military fronts, and all of the links are in red. KNewman 04:03, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
Mikkalai 04:39, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes, I was talking about 1st Belorussian, 2nd Belorussian, 1st Ukrainian and other fronts. Mikkalai got me right. KNewman 12:22, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • I've just added the list of the Soviet fronts and linked them. Please, correct the names if they're wrong and let the work on the article begin (hopefully). It would really help if someone could, probably, alphabetize the whole list. KNewman 14:33, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • I've alphabetised the list. Warofdreams 11:42, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Lack of votes. -- AndyL 01:29, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Christmas (not a stub)

Nominated November 30, 2004; needs 5 votes by December 7, 2004

Support:

  1. Carl 11:49, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Christmas was nominated for an Article of the Week, but then one person felt mad about Christmas being only about Anglophone traditions and non-English speaking traditions being thrown into Christmas around the world. I created CATW, and on thinking about it further, I think we should work together to turn the Christmas article into three separate articles about religious traditions, Anglophone traditions, and non-Anglophone traditions as described on the Christmas talk page. Even if you don't agree with my prescription to split up the Christmas page, I hope we all can agree to work on the page together sometime.--Carl 11:49, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Christmas was nominated as a featured article candidate. It is much too long to be a COTW. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:13, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, but as you can see on the FAC page, another user suggested the page needed to be edited before it could be featured. -Carl 14:46, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Nomination invalid - not a stub. [[User:Davodd|DAVODD «TALK»]] 02:43, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

[edit] Victorian era (19 votes in 4 weeks)

Nominated November 1, 2004; needs 20 votes by November 29, 2004

Support:

  1. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 21:37, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
  2. NeoJustin 23:51 Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
  3. KNewman 15:26, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
  4. ✏ Sverdrup 15:44, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. Falsifian 06:59, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)
  6. gadfium 21:49, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  7. RJH 23:04, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  8. Joe D (t) 00:47, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  9. Djnjwd 01:16, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  10. Martewa 16:26, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  11. PedanticallySpeaking 16:52, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
  12. Estel 19:41, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
  13. Ornil 04:48, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  14. Paul-L 12:01, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  15. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:20, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  16. ALoan (Talk) 14:23, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  17. Graham ☺ | Talk 16:59, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  18. ZayZayEM 02:59, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  19. The KoG | (talk) 22:08, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • This is on WP:UKCOTW too. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:23, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • This is far from being a stub and is already being dealt with as a UK Collaboration of the Week. We should give priority for needier articles and ones that will help us counter systemic bias. --Jiang 08:55, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Not enough votes. --AndyL 23:04, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Congo River Basin (2 votes in 1 week)

Nominated November 27, 2004; needs 5 votes by December 4, 2004

Support:

  1. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 03:00, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Litefantastic 14:47, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Seems Congo River could use some work first. I don't find many significant "________ River Basin" articles, either -- Amazon River Basin is just a redirect to the river, for example. --Dhartung | Talk 10:34, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree with the above, the basin should be a section on the page for 'Congo River'. If it ever expands to such a size that it needs a new article, then let us create one then. Grunners 23:04, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Not enough votes. --AndyL 16:05, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Netball (6 votes in 2 weeks)

Nominated November 22, 2004; needs 10 votes by December 6, 2004

Support:

  1. ZayZayEM 03:43, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. Grunners 14:13, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. [[User:Dmn|Dmn/ Դմն ]] 21:32, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. Nobi 06:00, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. Ambi 06:53, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  6. KingTT 03:00, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Compare to other sports like Basketball and Cricket. I know its a bit girly, but it is quite popular, especially in Oceania.--ZayZayEM 03:43, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree, the article is useless as it currently stands, without even a basic explanantion of the game, the sort of article that will put people off using Wikipedia for research. Grunners 14:13, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: The version you guys/gals/whatever were looking at was a vandalized version, apparently (I missed this too myself!) and the article was actually a bit more fleshed out ahead of time. It's not actually a stub... --Fastfission 06:32, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Oh... err... umm... sorry. The more fleshed out article is definitely better. I'm cool if this gets dropped from nomination (especially with my one-man no-stubs battle on WP:ACOTW)--ZayZayEM 13:58, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Not enough votes. --AndyL 03:53, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Nixon mask (1 vote in 1 week)

Nominated December 2, 2004; needs 5 votes by December 9, 2004

Support:

  1. Litefantastic 14:49, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Just because it's on the VfD and is a seventy five word stub is by no means cause to believe it cannot achieve greatness. -Litefantastic 14:49, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't this article be merged with the Mask? There are masks for many presidents of the US. I suppose, it doesn't make Richard Nixon's mask special. KNewman 18:51, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • I think the list of characters who've worn one is the only reason this need exist. For some reason the Nixon mask holds a special appeal in (at least) US culture that other reviled presidents can't achieve. It must be the ski-jump nose ... --Dhartung | Talk 07:23, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • the Nixon mask is special, it is by no means suitable for merging into the article Mask, one of the reasons it's so specialis that the caricature face is so readily recognised by people throughout the world, Nixon's face is one of those that lends itself to caricature well. Also, Nixon was one of the first Presdents of the US that was openly ridiculed, and was the butt of jokes, until Nixon, most Americans actually showed respect for the President, even if they didn't actually respect him. Presidents since Nixon are more likely to be hated and more likely to be thought of as evil rather than humorous... this all affects the way the mask of Nixonis perceived. Nixon's presidency was in some ways a turning point in American history. Pedant 22:10, 2004 Dec 8 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Not enough votes. -- AndyL 21:48, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Second Taiwan Strait Crisis (7 votes in 2 weeks)

Nominated November 26, 2004; needs 10 votes by December 10, 2004

Support:

  1. Jiang 00:11, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. Xed 11:26, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. J3ff 20:11, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. Loren 23:11, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 21:49, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
  6. PZFUN 11:00, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  7. The KoG | Talk 01:31, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • This 44-day bombardment of Quemoy by Communist China in 1958-59 left over 1000 killed and was a major issue in the 1960 U.S. presidential election between Kennedy and Nixon. The article is currently a one liner. --Jiang 00:11, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Wouldn't it be wiser to start with the First Taiwan Strait Crisis? This article is as small as the one you've nominated. KNewman 01:51, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
      • It doesn't really matter which one we start first. I chose this one because of its relation to the U.S. election. Either one had to do with U.S. foreign policy, Chiang Kai-shek, and Communist bombardments. I already wrote something on the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis that is not a stub. --Jiang 07:10, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Not enough votes. --AndyL 01:56, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Masonic Movement (2 votes in 1 week)

Nominated December 3, 2004; needs 5 votes by December 10, 2004

Support:

  1. KNewman 14:25, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Bogdan | Talk 19:57, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • I was quite surprised not to find an article on one of the most famous American right-wing organizations of the 19th century (well, maybe, the second most famous after the KKK, though the Klan was formed some 35 years later). I could only find a very small article on the Anti-Masonic Party in the US, but is this really all there is? KNewman 14:25, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Any article on the anti-Masonic movement should also make reference to the Know-Nothing movement. AndyL 17:10, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I merged the Movement with the Party, because officially it started out as a movement and later turned into a party. KNewman 04:35, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Not enough votes. --AndyL 15:29, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Economy of Europe (11 votes in 3 weeks)

Nominated November 20, 2004; needs 15 votes by December 11, 2004

Support:

  1. Grunners 19:59, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. Jerryseinfeld 00:46, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. [[User:Dmn|Dmn/ Դմն ]] 01:20, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. The Anome 13:25, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
  5. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:06, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
  6. CGorman 19:25, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  7. SimonP 20:06, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
  8. NeoJustin 21:59, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
  9. Graham ☺ | Talk 00:49, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  10. KNewman 19:57, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
  11. Scottbeck 00:13, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Began this article a few days ago, as it was something sorely lacking. It is based on the Economy of Africa article, but with slight adaptations. An article such as this is obviously a huge project, many parts of which require quite specific knowledge, and this could be gained by promotion as CotW. Many sections are currently just headings, or have a brief sentence, it is also a highly linked too page. Grunners 19:59, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Article needs work, but is not a stub. [[User:Davodd|DAVODD «TALK»]] 22:54, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • not a stub, but far, far short of what it should be. A complete article would dwarf what is currently there, which is ultimatly a template with some brief sections. Grunners 00:48, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • This article is far from being short. It is longer than most articles on wikipedia and is definitely not a stub. Sure, some empty sections need filling, but we need to set priorities. The continents that dont even have articles (i.e., Asia, the Americas, and Oceania) should have higher priority. --Jiang 11:20, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Since its nomination this page has recieved a lot of attention, and therefore probably no longer qualifies for COTW. Grunners 13:57, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • So long as it qualified when it was first nominated, it can stay on until it is pruned: expansion after an article is nominated does not disqualify it. If it is a decent standard now, fewer people will vote for it and it will be pruned in due course anyway. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:14, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Not enough votes. --AndyL 22:38, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

Nominated December 4, 2004; needs 5 votes by December 11, 2004

Support:

  1. Grunners 15:48, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Recently a great many "Culture of ......" articles have been written, but there is nothing at all on the great mix of cultures prevalent in Europe, or the effect had by immigration and changing borders. Grunners 15:48, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
However, we could do a "culture of.." for each cultural zone of Europe (like Culture of the Balkans, of Scandinavia, etc) See: Cultures of Europe (from Britannica) Bogdan | Talk 21:23, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Not enough votes. --AndyL 22:38, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Roman technology (3 votes in 1 week)

Nominated December 4, 2004; needs 5 votes by December 11, 2004

Support:

  1. Bogdan | Talk 19:55, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. Litefantastic 13:49, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. Pedant 21:15, 2004 Dec 8 (UTC)

Comments:

  • A large article already, defiantly needs work, but not a contender for CotW Grunners 02:09, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Why? I would have killed for a nice piece of information on Roman tech back when I was writing a paper on them in 8th grade! -Litefantastic 15:36, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Not enough votes. --AndyL 22:38, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Hala'ib Triangle (2 votes in 1 week)

Nominated December 5, 2004; needs 5 votes by December 12, 2004

Support:

  1. Grunners 02:07, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. Samaritan 04:05, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Important area in North African politics, shown on agreat many maps but yet a blank article. I'm doing research with a view to writing it, but if anyone can beat me to it that'd be fine and dandy, even better if they have maps :) Grunners 02:07, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Not enough votes. -AndyL 08:45, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] American comic book (not a stub)

Nominated December 3, 2004; needs 10 votes by December 17, 2004

Support:

  1. ike9898 16:42, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
  2. BTfromLA 18:23, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. ←Hob 20:30, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)
  4. Modemac 22:12, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  5. Tverbeek 22:23, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • This article needs some historical and artisitic context from people that aren't too close to the subject. Some good pictures would help, too. ike9898 16:42, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • How does this fit the COTW criteria, which is for "a specific topic which either has no article or a basic stub page"? ACB is a huge article of almost of featured status --Tagishsimon (talk)
    • What T said. -Litefantastic 03:08, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Alright, sorry. I neglected to read the policy. ike9898 04:02, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Does not qualify (see comments section including concurrence by nominator)--AndyL 14:51, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Radio drama (2 votes in 1 week)

Nominated December 6, 2004; needs 5 votes by December 13, 2004

Support:

  1. Calton 01:41, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. Litefantastic 13:50, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Right now the article is woefully thin, lacking in any real history or technique, and, to boot, almost wholly British -- modern British, at that -- in viewpoint. Radio drama had a huge history in the US, and the only acknowledgement of this is a single mention of Orson Welles's Mercury Theater production of War of the Worlds.
    • Yeah. We can hardly beare to forget such classics as The Shadow. -Litefantastic 13:50, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Not enough votes. AndyL 00:01, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Great Sedition Trial (2 votes in 1 week)

Nominated December 7, 2004; needs 5 votes by December 14, 2004

Support:

  1. KNewman 04:24, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Pedant 02:13, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)

Comments:

  • There is no article on what some U.S. historians consider a black page of American history - the Great Sedition Trial of 1944. The article on the American comic book, however, is too long to read. What a shame... KNewman 04:24, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • If it is important to you, start the article you regard as important. --Tagishsimon (talk)
      • I nominated this article only because I felt this was an important historic event that needed our attention the sooner the better. Secondly, I know very little about this trial and decided not to start a tiny stub and let someone knowledgeable work on it. KNewman 16:17, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
      • Probably we need to put the Collaboration article on COTW in the first place.Mikkalai 21:22, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • I'll get on with the substantive work of starting the Great Sedition Trial article. --Tagishsimon (talk)
  • While it is good that the topic was brought to an attention, IMO it is hardly broad enough to require crowded editing. Two-three dedicated persons will do. Mikkalai 23:21, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I think it would make more sense to change the name of the article to Smith Act Trials and expand the article so that it also discusses the 1941 trial of SWP leaders and the 1949-1951 trial of Communist Party leaders. AndyL 01:32, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • I'm happy to see that change made. --Tagishsimon (talk)
        • With a redirect from the present title of course. Pedant 00:47, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Not enough votes.AndyL 13:12, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Winnemem Wintu (1 vote in 1 week)

Nominated December 9, 2004; needs 5 votes by December 14, 2004

Support:

Comments:

  • this has a really really cool title, who cares what it is?

Reason for removal:

  • Lack of votesAndyL 13:43, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Culture of China (2 votes in 1 week)

Nominated December 8, 2004; needs 5 votes by December 15, 2004

Support:

  1. Jiang 03:04, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. ✏ Sverdrup 18:37, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • This article is basically a link farm. The world's oldest continuous civilization, currently home to a quarter of its population, should have plenty to cover. We recently expanded Chinese art, which is part of Chinese culture, amid criticism from Britannica. This article is even more needy. --Jiang 03:04, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Yep. This one really needs it. Should we even nominate it for CSB-COTW? ✏ Sverdrup 18:37, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Lack of votesAndyL 13:43, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/l/Wikipedia%7ECollaboration_of_the_week_Removed_2004_Archive_11_9924.html"