Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week/Removed/2006/Archive 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fiery furnace[edit]

Nominated on 15:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC); needs 3 votes by 6 January.

Very sparse article, even with the merges I proposed. This story is quite influential in the Jewish and Christian traditions and has had a large cultural impact in Jewish and Christian parts of the world. See the talk page for my further thoughts and goals for this article.

Support:

  1. Tetraminoe 15:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Willy Logan 15:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Dinosaur egg[edit]

Nominated on 04:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC); needs 3 votes by 6 January.

Support:

  1. Neutralitytalk 04:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Urthogie 13:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC) I've stricken vote after Silence's comment.--Urthogie 16:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SoothingR 14:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC). After those extensive cultures and military histories, it would be great for a change if we chose a topic that has nothing to do with nations their national heritage. I've stricken vote after Silence's comment.SoothingR 01:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Fenice 14:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Very important aspect of current dinosaur research. Neutralitytalk 04:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note that Egg (biology) itself is currently little more than a glorified stub. It has sections on bird eggs and fish eggs, but nothing else. You'd probably be better off simply working on that article and bringing it up to snuff and continuing to expand it until it reaches the point where a split is merited by its length, and then make "dinosaur egg" and "fish egg" and so on articles as daughter articles. Until that happens, making a new article is totally unnecessary and would just hide the information away from the rest of the "egg information where it's more likely to receive the attention it needs. -Silence 18:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Neutrality - to begin with we may at least strive to have at least a good article within a reasonable time. For the time, we may concentrate on improving the contents of Egg (biology) as suggested by Silence. --Bhadani 17:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Varnum[edit]

Nominated on 04:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by January 13, 2006.

Lt. Varnum was one of the significant characters in the battle of little bighorn, but as yet I have been hard pressed to find information about him. Hopefully as COTW all you history buffs out there would be able to fill in this major biographical gap on wikipedia

Support:

  1. Optimusnauta 04:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Moonstone 20:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Coal mining[edit]

Nominated on 00:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by January 4.

Coal mining was essential to literaly fuel the industrial revolution, which brought about the modern world, and in light of the tragic death of 12 West Virginia coal miners, I believe it would be an appropriate memorial

Support:

  1. Homegrown Democrat 00:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Waltwe 09:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Kevin Hanse (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. wonderflash11 04:41, 5 January 2006 (EST)

Comments:

  • (Posted by Urthogie)
  • Coal mining already exists and is significantly longer than a stub; WP:AID is the appropriate place for this nomination. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've moved this section from "Coal Mining" to "Coal mining". --Zigger «º» 04:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please move this nomination to Wikipedia:Article improvement drive, because it does not fit the profile for articles on this page. WP:AID will also accept stubs and this one is a good candidate. I will support it there.--Fenice 08:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It'd get my vote for Article Improvement. :) — RJH 21:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to forget the seven to eight thousand Chinese coal miners who die each year... --Oldak Quill 15:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Clemens[edit]

Nominated on 03:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by 9 January.

Since there is a page for his other pen name James Rollins, I believe we should make one under this pen name.

Support:

  1. Drkfirecloud61 03:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • If I understand correctly, James Clemens and James Rollins are the same person, right? So why can't you make a redirect? -- Ynhockey 19:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, you're correct. I'm new. I hadn't thought of that yet. Thank you. Drkfirecloud61 02:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean dumping[edit]

Why doesn't this exist? I'm surprised. --Tothebarricades 06:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support:

  1. Tothebarricades 06:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Dangherous 19:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

.

Prison farm[edit]

Nominated on 02:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC); needs 6 votes by 17 January.

This page has been listed at the Article Improvement Drive for the last week. However, it is a stub, so was listed there inappropriately. Looking over it, I believe it is an interesting topic, worthy of consideration. I'll be glad to help, but don't really know the subject much beyond seeing Cool Hand Luke and Civil Brand.

Support:

  1. Aaronwinborn 02:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Waltwe 09:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Durantalk 23:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Neutralitytalk 06:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Electronic warfare[edit]

Nominated on 20:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC); needs 6 votes by January 20.

A key element of modern warfare since World War II, this article is seriously underdeveloped. I think it could be a most interesting topic for collaboration. Thanks.

Support:

  1. RJH 20:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Ynhockey 19:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Moonstone 20:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Matthew kokai 05:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Electronic warfare is where we are going in the future. That and space warfare. Matthew kokai 05:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cake mix[edit]

Nominated on 03:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by 17 January 2006.

This poor stub has been through heck and back. It was suggested for merging, then unsuggested, then AfD'd (all by me; I've created this soap opera simply by looking at the article at random one day), and now I'd really like to see it go to CotW. It could prove to be a most splendid collaboration.

Support:

  1. Cernen Xanthine Katrena 03:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • That's a long way from AfD to Featured Article! I applaud the effort, but I don't think it meets this consideration for a collaboration: "Articles should interest a wide number of people, so many can contribute to the article's improvement." I have done some editing today. Hopefully other editors will do work to continue to improve the article. Crunch 03:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my opinion, this would be best be merged into cake. --Revolución (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citizen army[edit]

Nominated on 10:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by 28 January.

An important military-related term that has only a tiny stub.

Support:

  1. Ynhockey 10:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • I personally would change this to a redirect to militia. Talrias (t | e | c) 12:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually that's not a bad idea. How do I remove the nomination? -- Y Ynhockey || Talk Y 14:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reproductive cloning[edit]

Nominated on 12:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC); needs 6 votes by 22 January 2006.

A two-sentence article on one of the most controversial issues ever. Is this a no-brainer or what?

Support:

  1. Johnleemk | Talk 12:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Talrias (t | e | c) 13:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 07:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Davidpk212 17:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • I thought I saw an article already tackling this. Can't remember where, though. But shouldn't this be under Bio or something?

Computer skills[edit]

Nominated on 16:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC); needs 6 votes by January 22.

Computer skills (who has them and who doesn't) have an impact on poverty, literacy, and effects of downsizing.

Support:

  1. Joyous | Talk 16:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ZeWrestler Talk 18:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. -- Astrokey44|talk 04:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

History of Quebec City[edit]

Nominated on 18:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by January 26, 2006.

The history section of the Quebec City article is pitiful, yet there is no separate article. A fascinating history that deserves its spot on Wikipedia.

Support:

  1. Juppiter 18:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

First Balkan War[edit]

Nominated on 14:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC); needs 15 votes by 24 January.

Very important part of the Balkan history, yet not an adequate article

Support:

  1. Soul assassin 14:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Avala 16:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → Talk 21:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Lapsed Pacifist 04:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. NeoJustin 01:31, January 7, 2006 (UTC)
  6. Yellowmellow45 10:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 07:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Enr-v 21:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Darwinek 12:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Segv11 (talk/contribs) 02:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  1. Oppose According to the rules of this page, this article is a candidate for Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive, rather than here: it is much more than a short stub. Please don't be misguided by apparently small size: it has a table of all major battles, and it pretty much says it all about the topic (at least for my uneducated eye). Mukadderat 00:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Languages of Papua New Guinea[edit]

Nominated on 20:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC); needs 6 votes by 31 January 2006.

The richest country for linguistic diversity in the world is without an article.

Support:

  1. Dangherous 20:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Urthogie 10:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Darwinek 19:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Revolución (talk) 01:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. babbage 06:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • How many languages are spoken in Papua New Guinea? I think it is a few thousands. At least a few hundreds only on the island of New Britain I suppose. - Darwinek 19:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was reading a book about dying languages, and I remember that it said something like 1500 languages. --Dangherous 19:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Languages of Papua New Guinea would be a good place to start.--nixie 03:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

High-rise[edit]

Nominated on 14:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by 30 January 2006.

Awfully short article for an awfully big subject. Could include architecture, history, urban development. ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑

Support:

  1. ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑ 14:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Avala 15:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Shouldn't this be a redirect to Skyscraper? - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 04:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sandal (footwear)[edit]

Nominated on 21:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by January 31/05.

Humble shoe deserves recognition

Support:

  1. Quantum bird 21:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Hip hop production[edit]

Nominated on 04:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC); needs 15 votes by 2 February.

This is to hip-hop as editing is to wikipedia, and yet its only one sentance long.

Support:

  1. Urthogie 04:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Coolcaesar 21:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Darwinek 18:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Soul assassin 18:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Aaronwinborn 03:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Musicofmymind 11:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Modulatum 17:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cernen Xanthine Katrena 03:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. J3ff 14:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Dsol 15:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Andrew Levine 06:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Graphic 10:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. --Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 03:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Radio syndication[edit]

Nominated on 08:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by February 4.

this is a very lacking article about an important topic. It used to be a redirect to a disambig page, but lots of articles link to it, and the topic warrants an article

Support:

  1. cohesion★talk 08:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Siva1979Talk to me 14:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Transport in Europe[edit]

Nominated on 08:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC); needs 9 votes by February 3.

A weak article for what is the most advanced transportation network in the world.

Support:

  1. Pyro19 08:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Dangherous 19:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Andrew Levine 06:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Talrias (t | e | c) 11:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Donnerstag 16:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Gareth Aus 21:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Jredwards 07:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Petros471 18:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Caponer 04:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC) (cut off due to not meeting deadline of 9 votes before February 3)[reply]
  10. Jhohenzollern 03:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC) (cut off due to not meeting deadline of 9 votes before February 3)[reply]

Comments:

  • This should probably be at Transportation in Europe. Talrias (t | e | c) 11:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article certainly needs improvement. There is no discussion of the impact of Trans-European Networks, not even an accessibility map.

Gomphothere[edit]

Nominated on 20:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by February 8, 2006.

These powerful, elephant-like creatures once covered North America. They're big, impressive, almost mythic, and very few people have ever heard of them.

Support:

  1. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 20:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • ...and even fewer people may write something useful. Hardly a suitable COTW topic imo. mikka (t) 21:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Festival[edit]

Nominated on 02:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by February 13, 2006.

Basic article that's a stub. A lot can be written about this... history, purpose, types (religious, national), participants. Could represent a worldly view, as well. Lots of nice images can be added.

Support:

  1. Gflores Talk 02:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Chinese currency[edit]

Nominated on 21:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC); needs 9 votes by 14 February.

This page is currently a redirect, I propose that we have an article on the History of Chinese currency here. Our coverage of currency, coins and numismatics is unbelievably poor. I decided to nominate this, as I tried to find out some history on cash coin, an old circular chinese coin with a square hole stamped in, one of the oldest continually used coins and most abundant. The history of chinese money stretches back so so far, with things like cowrie shells being used etc, but there is next to nothing on it. I'm really surprised at the lack of information I found on wikipedia.

Support:

  1. Hahnchen 21:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Joe I 21:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Enlil Ninlil 19:13 25 January 2006 (AEST)
  4. King of Hearts | (talk) 03:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Heesung 15:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Siva1979Talk to me 14:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutralitytalk 07:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Jiang 03:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  1. Chinese currency should not simply redirect to Renminbi. It should be like British coinage. Joe I 21:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did find these:Coinage of Asia
Haven't looked at the links, so...good luck :) Joe I 04:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am doing the Coinage of Asia part, but unlike Roman currency it is way too big and must be broken up. With links from this page first. User:Enlil Ninlil 3:12 25 Jabuary 2006
  1. some info at Chinese yuan belongs in this article. --Jiang 03:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exchange student[edit]

Nominated on 00:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by February 14.

Such an important topic well deserves a better article.

Support:

  1. King of Hearts | (talk) 00:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Music recording[edit]

Nominated on 02:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by February 14, 2006.

I ran across a couple synonymous article titles, all of them redirecting to Sound recording. I started looking for a better redirect target, and found none good enough. "Sound recording" is but a technical side of "music recording"; the latter one is both narrower and wider, and most surely very prominent in modern culture, warranting a good overview article. (Music industry+Record industry+Record label+Gramophone record+Tape recorder+...)

Support:

  1. mikka (t) 02:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Osbus 23:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I've done a little research on this...definitely worth the timeOsbus 23:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asian architecture[edit]

Nominated on 22:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC); needs 12 votes by 16 February.

Definitely deserves an article. A lot can be written about this.

Support:

  1. Gflores Talk 22:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Revolución (talk) 01:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Avala 16:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Lockeownzj00 05:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Midnightmoonradiance 05:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Petros471 18:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Avala 21:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Siva1979Talk to me 14:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutralitytalk 06:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Ghelaetalk 17:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Lots of things that can be touched on here--especially representation of architecture in modern works of Asian origin--much like certain Asian art (specifically Japanese), which made the Asian stars of its paintings look much taller and more wide-eyed like Westerners, Western architecture began dominating media. It'd be interesting to see not only the history, but the transition.
  • I'm not sure there is such a thing as "Asian architecture". Israeli buildings are pretty unrelated to Afghani fortifications or temples in Laos. An article should exist, but it will probably be more of a list. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 20:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I concur here. This would be a rather arbitrary classification. "Traditional architectures of Asia" (or something like that) as an overview makes sense, but "asian architecture" gives a misleading idea as if there is something uniform. mikka (t) 21:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seconded. I fail to see anything in common between Buddhist, Hinduist, and Muslim traditions.
        • I agree. What is similar in Turkish and Japanese architecture? Asia is a huge continent. Juppiter 21:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Ghirla | talk 19:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Art of South Africa[edit]

Nominated on 05:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by February 15, 2006.

A little embarrassing what is currently there. I'd do something with it, but real life is in the way right now and I'd like to keep it as it is to rally support until there is a commitment to give the article true WikiJustice.

Support:

  1. RoyBoy 800 05:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Why not just merge this article into Culture of South Africa until there's enough content to justify a split? It'll be more likely to receive enough improvement to pass "stub" (or at least "substub") level if it's merged, and then it can be split again when it's not such an embarrassingly poor article. -Silence 20:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Child-rearing or Child rearing[edit]

Nominated on 22:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC); needs 9 votes by 17 February 2006.

Here's yet another embarassing oversight by Wikipedia. There must be thousands of books related to this subject, but we don't even have a stub.

Support:

  1. Sarge Baldy 22:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Aaronwinborn 02:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Juppiter 20:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Candybars 04:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Melaen 11:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Siva1979Talk to me 14:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Andromeda321 01:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Jredwards 23:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Mexican Cession[edit]

Nominated on 01:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC); needs 9 votes by February 18.

Being one of the most important land acquisitions in the history of the United States, it should have a much longer article.

Support:

  1. King of Hearts | (talk) 01:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 20:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Juppiter 20:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Siva1979Talk to me 14:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Caponer 19:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jhohenzollern 03:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutralitytalk 06:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. SpandX 17:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Collaboration_of_the_week/Removed/2006/Archive_1&oldid=40318496"