Wikipedia:Collaborations of the Week/Depth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Depth (July 16)

Nominated on 2 July 2005 21:09 (UTC); needs 10 votes by 16 July.

I'm nominating this because it's linked to from over 1200 articles, and it's still a stub. I added a secton on measuring the depth of craters, but it could still use a lot of expansion. This is a basic concept in physics. -- Beland 2 July 2005 21:09 (UTC)

Support:

  1. Beland 2 July 2005 21:09 (UTC)
  2. Dmcdevit 2 July 2005 21:35 (UTC)
  3. Titoxd 8 July 2005 22:44 (UTC)
  4. mikka (t) 9 July 2005 00:45 (UTC)
  5. Aecis 9 July 2005 12:16 (UTC)
  6. ZeWrestler 12:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  7. Poli 19:42, 2005 July 11 (UTC)
  8. Deryck C. 17:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  9. Steven McCrary 18:52, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • One of the most deserving articles! --Dmcdevit 2 July 2005 21:35 (UTC)
  • How much can be written about depth? Phoenix2 4th of July! 22:03 (UTC)
  • Well, I found a reasonable amount to write about how the depths of craters are measured. I'm sure there's a lot to say about depth in oceans and atmospheres, about optical, depth, and so on. Though many depth-related concepts have their own articles, which should be linked to. -- Beland 7 July 2005 03:10 (UTC)
  • The vast amount of articles linking to it is more than enough reason to nominate it. --Titoxd 8 July 2005 22:44 (UTC)
  • Like Phoenix, I'm not sure how much can be written about depth, but I think it's definitely worth a try, especially in view of the many links to this article. Aecis 9 July 2005 12:16 (UTC)
  • I also agree with Phoenix. The fact that there are many links does not mean that this should become an article. It's more like a dictionary definition, and this is why it has so many links to it. noamse
  • Couldn't hurt to see what would come from a nomination like this. --ZeWrestler 12:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree with Dmcdevit. Poli (talk • contribs) 19:42, 2005 July 11 (UTC)
  • An encyclopedia is useless if it can't deal well with simple science! Deryck C. 17:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I expanded the Depth (disambiguation) page, which should give an idea about the depth (pun intended) of this subject, but for example: depth of water, length, height, depth, and pressure measurement (which ties to measurement, surveying, etc.), etc. Some of these issues are adequately explored on other pages, but a general physical science explanation of depth is still needed. Steven McCrary 18:52, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Nearly all the links I could see were from craters, which use a standard box. This should perhaps be linked to Depth of craters instead. Rich Farmbrough 12:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Good point, perhaps bolstering the idea that the page is merely a depth-stub, in need of much expansion. Steven McCrary 13:27, July 14, 2005 (UTC)