Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week/Removed/2004/Archive 12

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 December 16 to December 31, 2004.

Antique (5 votes in 2 weeks)[edit]

Nominated December 2 2004; needs 10 votes by December 16 2004

Support:

  1. Gentgeen 10:16, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. Grunners 19:35, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. Paul 21:05, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  4. Stirling Newberry 17:31, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  5. ZayZayEM 02:31, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • just a disambiguation page right now. The primary meaning (a really old thing people pay way too much for) should be expanded. Gentgeen
  • support, although not so sure on your definition, but then being American you probably don't see many antiques :P (just kidding) Grunners 19:35, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • This sounds like a wonderful topic to expand.

Reason for removal:

  • Lack of votes -- McMullen 18:17, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Economy of Asia (13 votes in 3 weeks)[edit]

Nominated November 26 2004; needs 15 votes by December 17 2004

Support:

  1. Jiang 00:06, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. Xed 11:28, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. Fredrik | talk 14:50, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. J3ff 00:35, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. KNewman 18:09, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
  6. Norman Rogers 14:38, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  7. Paul 11:41, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  8. Grunners 23:02, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  9. __earth 04:02, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
  10. PZFUN 11:00, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  11. ZayZayEM 02:29, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  12. The KoG | Talk 20:48, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
  13. Comrade Tassadar 05:37, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • This article does not currently exist, compared to what we have at Economy of Africa and Economy of Europe. Asia is the most populous continent in the world with 60% of its populations. Many countries (eg China and India) are major players in the global economy and competition for resources in the area (Spratly Islands) may be a catalyst for future wars. --Jiang 00:06, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I copied the template from the Economy of Europe. Sorry if it looks weird, I'm no good with HTML and stuff. At least, it's a start :). KNewman 18:09, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
I have applied the template to the other "economy of" articles. Now that the foundations are there, it is time to start writing the articles. Norman Rogers 14:38, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The writing has begun! I've spent a lot of time today working on this article, it seems to be coming along nicely. Grunners 23:02, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I've written some material for the pre-1945 period. Hope somebody can proofread it. __earth 04:02, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Lack of votes -- AndyL 22:53, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Trade (7 votes in 2 weeks)[edit]

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

Support:

  1. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:51, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. KNewman 21:17, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
  3. SimonP 21:28, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Paul 21:41, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  5. AndyL 02:33, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  6. Stirling Newberry 20:45, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  7. Tarquin 13:47, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

Reason for removal:

  • Lack of votes -- AndyL 22:57, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Age of Discovery (7 votes in 2 weeks)[edit]

Nominated December 4 2004; needs 10 votes by December 18 2004

Support:

  1. RJH 18:29, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. Paul 19:18, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. SimonP 02:16, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Pharos 02:52, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  5. Thue | talk 21:04, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  6. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:52, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  7. ALoan (Talk) 02:00, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • This article, together with Age of Exploration, provide very minimal coverage of what was a significant period in human history. Even the History of the World#Rise of Europe section almost covers it better. I haven't found another page that might cover this topic at a high enough level. — RJH 18:29, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I think the two articles Age of Exploration and Age of Discovery should first of all be merged, maybe into Age of Exploration and Discovery. Otherwise, support.Paul 19:18, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I merged them both into Age of Exploration, which got slightly more Google hits than Age of Discovery. - SimonP 04:40, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree that Age of Exploration is better than Age of Discovery, as the latter can sometimes describe scientific discoveries of the period, as by Galileo. Perhaps "European Age of Exploration" would be more accurate. I would like to point out there is already a good amount of useful information on explorers and explorations in Category:Explorers. There is also at least one national article, Portugal in the period of discoveries. --Pharos 02:52, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Both this and the proposed article on the effects of this conquest need to be joined in one NPOV article. Age of discovery is POV - admittedly one we should document since it is a well tenured POV. So too are many of the attempts, such as "American Holocaust", to go in the other direction. The coverage of this period and its effects is a lacuna in the current Wikipedia, it's part of our mission to fill it, but to do so in a manner which presents the documentable events and viewpoints Stirling Newberry 18:05, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • The European discovery of the Americas is just one part of the Age of Exploration, and to be fully explained it deserves its own article. - SimonP 19:07, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • It looks much improved now. Thanks everybody. -- RJH 22:34, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Lack of votes -- AndyL 20:57, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Smith Act Trials (2 votes in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated December 12 2004; needs 5 votes by December 19 2004

Support:

  1. AndyL 16:10, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. The KoG | Talk 01:36, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Important chapter in American legal history and in the era of McCarthyismAndyL 16:10, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Withdrawn by nominator - article merged with Smith Act -- AndyL 00:26, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

First Taiwan Strait Crisis (4 votes in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated December 10 2004; needs 5 votes by December 17 2004

Support:

  1. Jiang 02:11, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. The KoG | Talk 02:48, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
  3. J3ff 06:18, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  4. Pyromonkeykw

Comments:

  • Only two lines at present.
  • Taiwanese/Chinese conflict is a contunuation of this crisis, and is necessary for understanding of the possible problems that may arise in the future.
  • This page on GlobalSecurity.org provides a good overview if anyone wants to use it as a source. AndyL 21:04, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Not enough votes -- AndyL 21:51, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cossack (7 votes in 2 weeks)[edit]

Nominated December 6 2004; needs 10 votes by December 20 2004

Support:

  1. Mikkalai 05:59, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. Calton 08:33, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:53, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  4. Samaritan 04:02, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  5. KNewman 04:57, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
  6. Grunners 01:58, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  7. ALoan (Talk) 02:00, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • A well-known word with surprisingly poor and confusing article for quite a long time. Mikkalai 05:59, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Not enough votes -- AndyL 12:10, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nobel Prize in Literature (11 votes in 3 weeks)[edit]

Nominated November 29 2004; needs 15 votes by December 20 2004

Support:

  1. ✏ Sverdrup 16:32, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. Dhartung | Talk 10:36, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. ALoan (Talk) 11:11, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. Slugokramer 17:32, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  5. Burgundavia 21:30, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
  6. AnyFile 15:00, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  7. Stirling Newberry 08:41, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  8. Ellipse 19:39, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  9. Calton 01:43, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  10. Litefantastic 13:48, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  11. Martewa 19:36, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • The article on one of the most prestigeous prizes consists of a stub text and a list that should really be at List of Nobel Prize in Literature winners. ✏ Sverdrup 16:32, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Ooh, lots of stuff could be here. This is the second most controversial Nobel, after the Peace Prize. --Dhartung | Talk 10:36, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Absolutely - history, procedures, controversial winners (and non-winners), ceremony, reactions... --Calton 08:46, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • All of the other Nobel prize articles are similar to this one: a short (sometimes microscopic) lead and a long list of prize winners - the longest, Nobel Peace Prize, only has a three paragraph lead. Following on from the "dance" suggestion (i.e. a collaborative topic rather than one article), it may be worth nominating all of the Nobel prize articles rather than just Literature. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:11, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Not enough votes -- AndyL 17:02, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

Nominated December 13 2004; needs 5 votes by December 20 2004

Support:

  1. Wonderfool 18:35, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. Litefantastic 22:33, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

Reason for removal:

  • Not enough votes -- AndyL 19:50, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Society (2 votes in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated December 17 2004; needs 5 votes by December 24 2004

Support:

  1. 68.9.61.204 22:02, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. A. D. Hair 08:22, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Now, this isn't a stub, but considering it's topic...its really stubbish. Seems like there's a lot of potential: types of societies (hunter gatherer, industrial, etc), social characteristics (ie: stratifacation), ways of studying it... what do you guys think? 68.9.61.204 22:02, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Needs work. I'd favour an article explaining the concept of society, with links to seperate articles on individual society types, so as to prevent the article from becoming too large to be useful to the casual reader. Grunners 02:17, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Not enough votes -- AndyL 22:12, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Population history of American indigenous peoples (12 votes in 3 weeks)[edit]

Nominated December 4 2004; needs 15 votes by December 25 2004

Support:

  1. Tagishsimon (talk) 00:10, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. Litefantastic 03:09, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. JOHN COLLISON [ Ludraman] 10:45, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  4. AndyL 03:45, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  5. SimonP 07:47, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
  6. The Anome 20:22, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Pedant 21:33, 2004 Dec 8 (UTC) strongly support this topic
  8. Bogdan | Talk 18:38, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  9. [[User:Sarge Baldy|Sarge Baldy]] 21:34, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
  10. [[User:Brian0918|brian0918 talk]] 16:04, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  11. Spangineer 07:02, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
  12. Zora 07:18, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • The destruction of the Indians of the Americas was, far and away, the most massive act of genocide in the history of the world." Going by the rationale of WP:CSB, this is something we should be writing about, uncomfortable as it might be for many Wikipedians. The current article starts from the perspective of a book about the holocaust: it should be developed into a structured treatment of the phases and geography of settlement, linked to scholerly estimates of death rates. The title could be changed, though in view of the subject matter, it seems fairly appropriate. --Tagishsimon (talk)
  • If needs be, must. That didn't come out sounding right. Considering that the entire populations of two continents were badly ravaged, I would consider this highly relevent in the world today. The lack of a large existing article dealing exclusively with this subject may be a case of not seeing the forest for the trees. -Litefantastic 03:09, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • This subject would best be treated in an article that covered all aspects of the post-European contact decimation of the indigenous peoples of the Americas. The discussion of this broader subject is necessary because there is considerable arguement over the relative effects of introduced diseases and oppressive colonialism, and to what extent the former was deliberately spread by the latter. Of course this broader subject would be titled accordingly, something like Decimation of Pre-Columbian populations.--Pharos 10:07, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Is this article just about the one book American Holocaust or is it about the Native American genocide generally? I don't think the term American Holocaust is generally used and it's not self-evident that it refers to Native Americans. I agree an article is necessary, not sure if this is the right titleAndyL 16:09, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • This looks POV almost by definition. You do, of course, realize that "pro-life" forces refer to abortion as the "American Holocaust". Stirling Newberry 17:30, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Definitely pick a more scholarly-sounding title. I don't have any offerings over what to call those killed, though. Any title which effectively indicates who this heterogeneous group of people were is going to, unfortunately, have European origins and references, I don't see any way around that. I don't think "Holocaust" works that well though; it implies (to me) a singular (systematic) act, whereas what we are talking about here are decentralized (albeit often systematic) acts against many different groups of "native" people perpetuated by many different groups of "European" people (quotes added only to emphasize the problematic nature of the terms). All of that being said, there should be some article on this, though I think deciding its title and its approach/scope would be something to work out ahead of time. Personally I think it should be one page which branches out to others; i.e. "Decimation of Pre-Columbian populations" or something like that, which then has little summaries which lead to other pages, "Decimation of indigenous populations by Spain/England/Portugal/France/whomever" etc. But that's just a suggestion.--Fastfission 04:27, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I've renamed to page to "Mortality rates arising out of the European colonization of the Americas" since American Holocaust was thought by others to be POV. I'm happy that the search for /the/ NPOV title should go on. --Tagishsimon (talk)
  • I just can't vote for an article with such a ridiculously long name. We have to think of a shorter name. KNewman 02:39, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • I voted for the article but I agree the name is far too wordy. Can we think of something more succinct? Genocide of Native Americans? Native American Depopulation (too euphemistic?)AndyL 03:45, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • OK then I propose Devastation of Native American populations; this deals with the etymological objection to "decimation"(literally meaning loss of 10%), the POV of "holocaust" and "genocide" (if we are to cover non-genocidal aspects), the over-euphemism of "depopulation", and the US-implying "American". Although I personally think "American Indian" is the better term, I yield that to the current consensus, which has located its article at Native American.--Pharos 07:02, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree that this topic needs a longer article and a shorter title. The Encyclopedia of North American Indians covers this topic in an article titled "Disease", which doesn't help us much. - SimonP 07:47, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Maybe, Aftermath of the European colonization of the Americas? Or Consequences of the ... ? KNewman 12:06, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Still POV. Most of the deaths in the aftermath of European colonization were from disease, not direct killing. This is not to carry a brief for slavery, conquest, pillaging and so on, but both the chosen titles and some of the comments here indicate, to me at any rate, that this is an attempt to grease POV down the rails. The term "Age of Discovery" is also POV - though one with greater tenure. My suggestion is thus to find a real NPOV term for the entire period - include both the achievements of exploration and conquest while documenting the mortality, misery and perfidity associated with them. Stirling Newberry 18:01, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • There are a lot of hits for "native american" and "genocide" in google. I think we can call an article "Genocide of Native Americans" if we open the article by saying:" Genocide of Native Americans refers to allegations that European settlers and/or the United States government pursued a deliberate policy of eliminating Native American nations through the nineteenth and, some allege, into the twentieth century. " Point being the term "genocide" is widely used to describe what happened, NPOV requires us to contextualise the term as an allegation, not to avoid using it altogether. AndyL 18:19, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't find an article on "The Abortion Genocide", which has plenty of google links as well. The phrase implies something which never happened: namely a culpable and conscious single decision to eradicate the inhabitants of the Americas. One can certainly point to many individual actions which amount to genocide, and genocidal attitudes (one might add that many native groups had genocidal ambitions against competing tribes as well). It's a frame and the variations proposed don't seem to get away from the basic attempt to draw Holocaust parallels. Stirling Newberry 20:43, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • The spread of European diseases, the agreed main, though not only, cause of the massive deaths, was arguably partly caused by malevolent actions, but there is far from a consensus that most of these deaths can be attributed to genocide. Let me say explicitly that I think the focus of this article should be on the remarkable historical fact of the death of 9/10 of the native populations of the Americas, not broader to cover every aspect of colonization(best done elsewhere), and not narrower(focusing only on the genocidal aspects).
    • Don't forget the buffalo. Or bison. I'm sure theres a difference--Wonderfool 14:29, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • A few names I've dug up in history books:
- SimonP 19:01, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
I think Destruction of the native peoples of the Americas seems to be the most apposite title so far. -- The Anome 20:24, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
I like Impact of the European conquest of the Americas better; it implies that the article would also discuss what the survivors went through. -Litefantastic 21:42, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I would suggest Post-Columbian Depopulation since that is a term used by the various POVs on this subject and describes the documentable event. Stirling Newberry 20:48, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Is this article intended to only cover depopulation? The original title, "American Holocaust," also covered the cultural obliteration that followed the European arrival. - SimonP 07:53, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
        • The term Post-Columbian Depopulation is used in the book "American Holocaust". And there is ample room within an article on it to detail subsidiary effects: enslavement, cultural obliteration, conquest, disruption of economic and social patterns etc. Stirling Newberry 22:46, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm suggesting Destruction of American Indigenous peoples as the best fit. "Native Americans" is usually used to refer to Aboriginal peoples in Canada and the US rather than in all of the Americas so I think "Indigenous peoples" is better understood. "Destruction" explains what happened without either being euphemistic (such as with "depopulation") or POV (Genocide suggests a deliberate act, "Destruction" simply describes what occured without assigning blame).
    • So if I write a big long section on what the Aztecs did to other native cultures pre-columbus that is OK? I think this fails the smell testStirling Newberry 22:47, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No. The destruction was in fact a deliberate act, there are plenty of historical references for this. Genocide is an almost inadequate term as from 87 to 99 percent of the population of indigenous 'Native American"/"American Indian" has been killed. This ranks as an equal to the Nazi Holocaust of the Jews and Gypsies and cripples and elderly... all combined. I suggest Genocide in the Americas with redirects from any appropriate titles, but the title doesn't matter so much as the content. There is no need not to assign blame when the evidence exists for who ordered various acts of genocide. We assign blame for the Jewish Holocaust to Nazi Germany, why not assign blame in this case? I would oppose watering this article down just to prevent assigning validly assignable responsibilty for this.Pedant 21:33, 2004 Dec 8 (UTC)
Sorry, there's absolutely NO proof that the spread of disease was intended. The one cite that keeps being brought up over and over again, the smallpox-infected blankets, is from an 18th century letter, IIRC, it was a suggestion, and there is no proof that it was ever carried out. Please read the article as it stands and learn something about epidemiology.
This is not to absolve the Europeans of what they DID do. If a man kills one Indian and another nine die of disease, he's still guilty of that one death. But calling it genoicide is exaggeration. Zora 22:02, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Sorry, there's absolutely NO proof that the spread of disease was intended." Well, on the one hand yes, given that the Native American immune system had never been exposed to various common European diseases the virus for which the majority of Europeans carry, the exposure to these diseases by merely Europeans was inevitable and unavoidable. On the other hand, you do have instances, I believe, of Europeans deliberately giving carpets infected with small pox to Native traders. AndyL 14:55, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My first response in looking at the article (whatever its eventual name) was where's the article Native American history or its equivalent? There's a category of that name, but no central article to organise it. As a result, it's difficult to place the population decline in context. i think an overview article should take priority over the population history; and the latter should then be easier to develop. (NB if there is such an overview article that I've missed, then count me as Support.) Rd232 18:28, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Not enough votes -- AndyL 00:23, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Operation Pierce Arrow (4 votes in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated December 19 2004; needs 5 votes by December 26 2004

Support:

  1. Snipre 20:10, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. The KoG | Talk 00:53, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
  3. ExplorerCDT 03:23, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  4. Páll 20:11, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • The article is a stub, and I was surprised to see that the trigger for the Vietnam War had such a short article. It really could do with a good improvement. Snipre 20:25, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Not enough votes -- AndyL 21:12, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Tax rates around the world (9 votes in 2 weeks)[edit]

Nominated December 14 2004; needs 10 votes by December 28 2004

Support:

  1. KNewman 14:12, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Spangineer 07:07, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
  3. ALoan (Talk) 02:00, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  4. Bogdan | Talk 19:47, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  5. --Malbear 11:49, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  6. AnyFile 11:53, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  7. RoboAction 10:53, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  8. Páll 20:11, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  9. brian0918™ 12:48, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • This article has been on the request page for quite some time. Aren't we all curious to find out who pays most or least taxes on this planet? KNewman 14:12, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • I consider it comparing apples with pears - the income tax isn't the only tax you pay. Some countries have a low income tax but a high sales tax, or one country may have social insurances separate while the other country includes them in the tax. And the information changes often, and usually there is no single number as tax rates may vary with the income. andy 15:28, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Why then we even bothered with currency rates in some of our articles? And they change every day. KNewman 15:55, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • This one will take a ton of research, but I think it would be interesting. We will need to include info on the major taxes of each nation - some countries have car taxes, for example, in addition to income tax and/or sales tax. Also, could we change the title to World tax rates or something similar (i.e., shorter)? --Spangineer 07:07, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • The current article is exclusively about income taxes. If that is the purpose the article should be moved to Income tax rates around the world Rmhermen 21:12, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • I am a sucker for any article to do with empirical facts and figures.--Malbear 11:49, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree with Spangineer that it should be renamed to World tax rates or something similar; ortherwise seems worthy and useful. RoboAction 10:53, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Not enough votes --AndyL 16:00, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Police car (7 votes in 2 weeks)[edit]

Nominated December 15 2004; needs 10 votes by December 29 2004

Support:

  1. Aqua 08:36, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Dhartung | Talk 12:09, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. Norman Rogers\talk 13:45, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  4. A. D. Hair 08:10, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Vaoverland 01:52, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
  6. brian0918™ 12:50, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  7. sars 12:12, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Alternate names: Police car, Squad car. I found it surprising that this article didn't exist when police uses images of police cruisers exclusively to illustrate it. I'm sure that a lot can be said about the modifications that differentiate a police cruiser from a regular car, as well as marked vs unmarked. Explanations for the types(sedan, van, suv... maybe even motorcycles?). Also, there's a pretty rich history that goes along with the history of the automobile, particularly noting the points of inc/dec power/acceleration of the vehicles.(I realize my reasons are pretty US centric, but I'm sure that a lot can be said about the police cars of other countries too) --Aqua 08:36, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Neutral, for now. I'm skeptical that this is really a COTW candidate -- I don't see it getting very long unless it devolves into checklists of differences in jurisdictions & decades. Stlil, there are a number of things that should be added, such as standard equipment (radios, now computers, slim jims, jaws of life, sirens, light bars ...), the differences between foot and car patrol approaches, the car chase (techniques -- LA area especially does a lot of training, controversy), and yeah, we could note the various police package vehicles, such as the ubiquitous Ford Crown Victoria. OK, maybe I can see it.--Dhartung | Talk 12:09, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I suggest an article at police car; police cruiser is never used in British English, while police car should be universally understood. Warofdreams 12:05, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree with Warofdreams, especially as no pages link to police cruiser whereas quite a number link to police car. Grunners 20:27, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Not enough votes --AndyL 15:00, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Aerobic exercise (2 votes in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated December 24, 2004; needs 5 votes by December 30, 2004

Support:

  1. 119 04:25, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. LostLeviathan 09:25, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Wikipedia articles on exercise are very inadequate in my opinion. This particular article is extremely short. As Aerobic exercise is a major topic in fitness and health I think this is a good way of developing related articles. 119 04:25, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Not enough votes --AndyL 00:22, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Blood sugar (4 votes in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated December 24, 2004; needs 5 votes by December 31, 2004

Support:

  1. LostLeviathan 09:18, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. Snipre 18:12, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. Ground 13:31, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  4. Rholton 06:16, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • This article is currently a very short stub. Considering how important this is to the field of nutrition, and medicine in general, and the number of pages that link to it (I count 30, not including redirects), it is a gap that absolutely must be filled. Furthermore, the role of blood sugar levels in contributing to disease is highly controversial among nutritionists; this debate could result in a very interesting article, and perhaps spawn some new ones (there have been several bestselling diet books that are centered on blood sugar regulation via use of the glycemic index, and these or their authors could become useful articles). [1] Perhaps most importantly, this article would make several prominent existing articles (such as diabetes mellitus) more clear. --LostLeviathan 09:18, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Not enough votes --AndyL 14:41, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Lemon (3 votes in 1 week)[edit]

Nominated December 24, 2004; needs 5 votes by December 31, 2004

Support:

  1. User:Neutralitytalk 20:54, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
  2. ExplorerCDT 22:27, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. sars 12:13, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Pretty pathetic, no matter how you slice it ;). User:Neutralitytalk 20:54, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
    • Good Pun. LOL —ExplorerCDT 22:27, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • it needs more zest--Wonderfool 03:26, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral. This article's lack of development seems typical of the articles in Category:Fruit. Even fruits that are an integral part of peoples' lives, and come in many different varieties (see: orange (fruit)), aren't nearly as developed as they could be. Maybe we should start a Fresh Produce Collaboration of the Week to address this problem more sweepingly. My point is, I just can't see this article being developed much as a CotW. --LostLeviathan 00:29, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I disagree. So far at ACOTW/COTW we've voted for big sweeping generally articles, like culture, art, and ancient warfar. This is great, but the topics are so huge that nobody really knows where to begin. Lemon, on the other hand, is a specific topic. If the community puts a week of work into this it could easily be featured. Neutralitytalk 21:31, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Not enough votes --AndyL 20:56, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Collaboration_of_the_week/Removed/2004/Archive_12&oldid=56951447"