Jump to content

Wikipedia:Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Stevioli (talk | contribs) at 02:47, 10 June 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

If you followed WP:ACOTW looking for the Wikipedia:Anime Collaboration of the Week, please use WP:AMCOTW.

Template:Australian Collaboration Notice

Shortcut

Every two weeks, an Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight will be picked using this page. This is a specific topic which either has no article or a basic stub page that is directly related to Australia, the aim being to have a featured-standard article by the end of the period, from widespread cooperative editing.

The project aims to fill gaps about Australia in Wikipedia, to give users a focus and to give us all something to be proud of. Anyone who is a registered user, not just Australians, can nominate an article and can vote for the nominated articles.

Every second Sunday, the votes are tallied, and the winner will be promoted for two weeks to potential contributors.

Previous winners that have gone on to become featured articles can be found at /Features.
All previous winners can be found at /History.
Removed nominations can be found at /Removed.

Selecting the next Collaboration of the Fortnight

The next winner will be selected on Sunday, 18 June, 2006, 20:00 (AEST)

Voting

Please vote for as many of the following candidates as you like. Please add only support votes. Opposing votes will not affect the result, as the winner is simply the one with the most support votes (see Approval voting).

Only registered users should vote. Any Wikipedian can vote on this page. You do not have to be an Australian.

To enter your votes, simply edit the appropriate sections by just inserting a new line with "# ~~~~". This will add your username and a time stamp in a new numbered list item.

Tie-breakers

In case of a tie, a special voting round will be launched for the next 24 hours. Users may only vote on one of the tied articles. If there is still a tie, the candidate that was nominated first wins.

Nominations

New nominations can be made at any time and should be added at the end of this page. Please use the template.

If the page you are nominating already exists, please add {{Australian COTW candidate}} to the top of its talk page. This expands to:

Template:Australian COTW candidate

Considerations for nominations

  • Please only nominate Australian articles which don't currently exist or need serious work. – also see Aussie stubs). If you have an article that is not related to Australia please use Collaboration of the Week, which is not specific to Australian articles.
  • Giving reasons as to why an article should become the ACOTW may assist others in casting their vote.
  • Can the wider community easily contribute to the article? Or is it something only a small number of people will know about?

Selection

If the article is selected as the ACOTF, enter the article's complete title at Template:Collab-australian. The template {{Current Australian COTF}} should then be placed at the top of the selected article's page. This expands to:

Template:Current Australian COTF

When the article is no longer ACOTF, please add the following template to the talk page: {{past acotf|date|year}}

Pruning

Nominations will be moved to /Removed if they do not attract attention. An item will be allowed to remain up for voting two weeks per two votes it receives.

Items may also be removed if they are inappropriate for nomination (see Considerations... above)

Please see the talk page to discuss to changes in pruning policy.

You can find a list of Australian articles on the to do list on the Australian Wikipedians' noticeboard (a full list can be found at the complete to do list).

Current candidates

Click here to add a new nomination

AWB Limited kickbacks scandal

Nominated on April 11 2006; needs 8 votes by June 6 2006 to remain listed.

Support:

  1. Ambi 06:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Donama 00:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC) but possibly with a different title - Ambi, you bet me to it suggesting this one.[reply]
  3. A Y Arktos\talk 02:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 05:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Xdenizen 00:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Scott Davis Talk 04:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Alphax τεχ 01:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • We effectively have no central coverage of this at all, apart from a short paragraph in AWB Limited. This really needs an article of its own, and a good one. I'm not too sure about the title, either - feel free to suggest an alternative.
  • There is a limited amount of info on his in the Oil-for-food Programme, which Oil-for-food scandal redirects to. Possibly call this article AWB Oil-for-food scandal or AWB Iraq kickbacks scandal or Oil for wheat scandal (after the section heading in the Oil-for-food article.[1] Either way it would be the "main article" linked from the short section on the topic in the Oil-for-food article. Donama 00:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a lot of information on the subject at the Cole Inquiry article -- CHANLORD [T]/[C] 00:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great, I was looking for this article (but spelling inquiry as enquiry)! Only thing is this article still doesn't cover everything. It's like Kevin Rudd was complaining on Lateline the other night, the frame of reference for the enquiry is purely to find out if criminal charges ought to be laid on any Aussie company, not to find out if MPs shirked their responsibilities or if the UN contract scrutineers screwed up. Since the idea that MPs and the UN did screw up have been suggested in numerous news articles, it would be ideal to summarise all these views and the facts we have at hand in a single article. Donama 01:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm of the opinion that this should be covered in the article on the Cole Inquiry.--cj | talk 06:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cj, you truly are the ears & eyes of Australia inside wikipedia, √αʑʑρεɾ 06:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cole Inquiry is like a subset of the whole, scandal, CJ. I agree it's important, but by virtue of it's legal restriction, the Cole inquriry can't be the whole story. Unfortunately it's Easter now so no one cares again, but doesn't stop the issue being historically significant and important for retrospective study. Donama 07:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Donama. Cole Inquiry gets us 80% there, the rest could be covered under an objective and bland title such as How the Australian Government mislead its citizens yet again and got away with it. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 05:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, but I only saw one of the parts. What needs mentioning is what that UN woman (think she is Canadian) said, and what the documentary said about her. Basically, she admitted fully that she made a mistake, but tried to explain just how unexpected it was that AWB would be implicated like this because of huge standing and reputation. — Donama 01:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Census in Australia

Nominated on 12 April 2006; needs 10 votes by June 21 2006 to remain listed.

Support:

  1. cj | talk 06:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. michael talk 06:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Chuq 02:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Xdenizen 00:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Grumpyyoungman01 05:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kingpomba 07:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cvene64 13:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. — Донама 11:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. A Y Arktos\talk 23:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Given we have a census approaching, Wikipedia should have a decent article covering it.
  • Is there anyway of getting a hold of blank forms from previous censuses (censii)? -- Chuq 02:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Communications in Australia

Nominated on April 24 2006; needs 6 votes by June 5 2006 to remain listed.

Support:

  1. Chuq 04:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Scott Davis Talk 05:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Донама 01:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Brisvegas 12:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Began as an extract from the CIA World Factbook, but this could easily be cleaned up and expanded to include various internet access methods (dial-up/ADSL/wireless/cable/etc), controversies with the broadband industry in Australia, FTTN proposals (both Telstra's and the consortium) - and that is only within the internet access - there is also radio, TV and telephony. -- Chuq 04:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adelaide

Nominated on 26 April 2006; needs 8 votes by June 21 2006 to remain listed.

Support:

  1. michael talk 12:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Scott Davis Talk 05:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --darkliight[πalk] 20:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jasrocks 10:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. cj | talk 10:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --alanis_grrrl 12:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • She is that close; I've been leaving messages on its talk page expecting a response re getting her up to standard - I got nothing. It would be a complete and utter waste to just leave Adelaide to rot rather than just putting in that little bit more and getting her to FA. michael talk 04:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's already a good article. michael talk 04:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Andjam's comment that a separate "featured article workshop" or "article improvement drive" is needed to bring A-Class articles to FAC stage. The ACOTF is really meant to just fatten Australian coverage, not to serve as a concerted FAC drive. Still, I'd love to see a group-effort on Adelaide by any means. ;-) cj | talk 10:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boy Charlton

Nominated on May 3 2006; needs 6 votes by June 14 2006 to remain listed.

Support:

  1. Ambi 04:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. cj | talk 04:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 04:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I@n ≡ talk 10:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Witty lama 11:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Stevioli 02:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Bakhtiari deportation controversy (or similar)

Nominated on 7 May 2006; needs 6 votes by 18 June 2006 to remain listed.

Support:

  1. pfctdayelise (translate?) 22:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. cj | talk 05:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Ambi 06:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Донама 11:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. JROBBO 23:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • I was very surprised to find that we don't have an article to cover this very high profile asylum seeker case. Quite a detailed saga, what with the boys alleging they were put up to various things by their lawyers, and the whole camping out at the British embassy trying to claim protection there.

History of Australia series

Nominated on May 23 2006; needs 10 votes by August 2 2006 to remain listed.

Support:

  1. Rebecca 07:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 07:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Scott Davis Talk 23:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Fully — Donama 01:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. cj | talk 02:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Brisvegas 08:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Peta 04:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Astrokey44 05:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • These articles are really quite ordinary, compared to the standard of articles such as Australia these days. There has been general agreement to split them up into a series of smaller articles for a couple of years now, but it has never happened. I propose spending a fortnight splitting the series up into five or six articles, improving the new articles, and turning History of Australia into a genuinely decent summary-style article. Rebecca 07:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Storm Boy

Nominated on 24 May 2006; needs 4 votes by June 21 2006 to remain listed.

Support:

  1. cj | talk 06:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Scott Davis Talk 14:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Longhair 11:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Portal:Australia/Anniversaries

Nominated on 25 May 2006; needs 4 votes by 22 June 2006 to remain listed.

Support:

  1. A Y Arktos\talk 23:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yes.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

A Y Arktos\talk 23:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fightback!

Nominated on 25 May 2006; needs 4 votes by 22 June 2006 to remain listed.

Support:

  1. cj | talk 08:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Rebecca 09:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Grumpyyoungman01 02:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Military history of Australia during World War II

Nominated on 2 June 2006; needs 2 votes by 16 June 2006 to remain listed.

Support:

  1. --Astrokey44 05:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Shogun 02:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Australian_Collaboration_of_the_Fortnight&oldid=57813579"