Wikipedia:Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight/History/Archive 2006

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Australian collaborations in 2006.


Sydney Olympic Park

Nominated on October 30; needs 10 votes by January 8 2005 to remain listed.

ACOTF from 26 December 2005 to 9 January 2006

  • 7 contributors made 13 edits
  • The article increased from X to X - X times longer
  • See how much it changed

Support:

  1. Chuq 05:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Ambi 05:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --J L C Leung 08:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Brisvegas 10:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. pfctdayelise 14:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SydneyBronte 02:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Astrokey44 04:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. bacco007 01:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • A tiny stub article that didn't exist until a few days ago, about an area which was the focus of most of the world's population just a few years ago! There is so much that can be written here; the industrial history of the area, the brand new buildings and structures (eg. solar lights) for the games, the infrastructure to the area, and the development of the area since the games (eg. residential development and Olympic themed sculptures). -- Chuq 05:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The MCG should and will go first, but this is probably the second most important sporting facility in the country; I'm amazed we didn't have anything on it until so recently. Ambi 05:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that the MCG is featured, let's go with that...then maybe the Rabbit Fence, then Sydney Olympic Park, and then the SCG. --J L C Leung 08:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Six o'clock swill

Nominated on 14 November; needs 8 votes by 9 January 2006 to remain listed.

ACOTF from 9 January 2006 to 22 January 2006

  • 11 contributors made 21 edits
  • The article increased from 687 words to 833 words - 1.2 times longer
  • See how much it changed

Support:

  1. pfctdayelise 14:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Brisvegas 00:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Ambi 02:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. A Y Arktos 22:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Colonel Tom 02:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SydneyBronte 02:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Phanton 10:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Refers to the period from after WWI to approx 1950s, where pubs had early closing (6pm), so workers would race to the pub after work, order six beers apiece and get as pissed as possible while the bar was open. It was initially introduced with some rationale about the War or the Depression. Despite the fact that it was hugely unpopular, it managed to stay around for a good few decades once the War was over. At time of nomination, article does not exist. I think it's a unique aspect of Australian culture (although, a similar phenomenon occurred in NZ I believe) that could be really interesting to flesh out.
  • This could be a particularly interesting one; something a bit different. Ambi 02:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

excellent potential entry. Very much a part of Australian drinking culture, I wounder if the 'skul' originated at that time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ichaussivert (talk • contribs) 11:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Related to the notion of the Longest bar in Australia; bars were long to fit all the drinkers in at once before closing.--A Y Arktos 22:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A good article on this remarkable cultural phenomenon would be an asset to WP, I feel. Colonel Tom 02:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Article now started but could do with some collaborative effort--A Y Arktos 01:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Convictism in Australia

Nominated on December 1; needs 8 votes by January 26 to remain listed.

ACOTF from 22 January 2006 to 5 February 2006

  • 14 contributors made 62 edits
  • The article increased from nothing to 14.3 kb
  • See [1]

Support:

  1. Snottygobble | Talk 02:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cnwb 02:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Ambi 08:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Astrokey44 13:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Diceman 11:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Alexxx1 (talk/contribs) 22:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Ianbrown 14:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. A Y Arktos 19:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Willardo 23:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • A major theme in Australia's history and culture that still doesn't have an overview article.
  • The title is a bit clunky; can you think of anything better? "Convicts in Australia" would seem to refer to the people rather than the whole system. "Convict transportation to Australia" is similarly flawed.
  • Shameless plug: see Convict era of Western Australia for inspiration. Snottygobble | Talk 02:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's an important and underrepresented topic, and after all the work Drew has put into the WA article, the least we could do is create a half-decent national one. Ambi 08:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should be an article, although convict is mostly about Australia. 'Convicts in Australia' sounds better than convictism Astrokey44 13:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A very important topic in Australian history. Definitely in need of an overview article. --Alexxx1 (talk/contribs) 22:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree needs an overview article, don't like the proposed title much, I agree with Astrokey44 that 'Convicts in Australia' sounds better, but understand why that is flawed. If we went for

"Convict transportation to Australia" wouldn't want to limit merely to getting here. It is what happened to them here, how they were treated, the contributions thay made... It is actually a really big topic when you think about such notable people as Francis Greenway, who contributed at a very different level than the many labourers, the various fleets, assignment of duties, cessation of transportation .......--A Y Arktos 19:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's Time

Nominated on December 31; needs 8 votes by February 25 to remain listed.

Support:

  1. Ambi 07:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. cj | talk 12:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. pfctdayelise 03:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Alexxx1 (talk/contribs) 22:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cnwb 00:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Willardo 07:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Matthew kokai 09:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Ian ≡ talk 14:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Agnte 11:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. mdmanser 14:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Bobby1011 22:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Supaluminal 09:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. A Y Arktos 10:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Our most notable political campaign, and a very interesting topic that is barely covered at all, apart from brief mentions in the biographies of the people involved. Heck, It's Time currently points to a Michael Buble album. I think this could be one of the more interesting ones we've done. Ambi 07:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seconded.--cj | talk 12:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should the article go at It's Time and remove the current album article, or should that become a disambig page, and something like It's Time (album) and It's Time (politics) be created? -- Astrokey44|talk 06:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is far more notable than the album - move to It's Time (album) with a disambiguation header. Ambi 04:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ACOTF from 5 February 2006 to 20 February 2006

  • about 16 contributors made about 60 edits
  • The article increased from 5.7 kb to 9.2 kb - 60% longer
  • See how it changed

Order of Australia

Nominated on January 17 2006; needed 12 votes by March 28 2006 to remain listed. Selected 21 February 2006.

Support:

  1. Dowew 02:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. A Y Arktos 07:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. cj | talk 07:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Forever young 13:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cnwb 22:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 01:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Dpd 02:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Witty lama 06:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Ian ≡ talk 07:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Caponer 04:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Jhohenzollern 03:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Although I am not an Austrlian (im a canuck) I think this is one article that could use a lot of expansion considering its the highest honour an Australian can aspire to. For an example of what can be done, I suggest looking at the Order of Canada page.
  • Bunyip aristocracy, not worth any serious attention. How about awards for brave dogs instead? TheToxicAvenger 07:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • With example articles like Order of Canada and others to follow, and with Flag of Australia nearing FAC, a collaboration on this might result in a featured article.--cj | talk 07:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ACOTF from 21 February 2006 to 5 March 2006

Australian Space Research Institute

Nominated on 19 December 2005; needs 12 votes by March 13 2006 to remain listed. Selected 5 March 2006

Support:

  1. Diceman 17:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ～J.K. 23:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. cj | talk 12:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Matthew kokai 09:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jordie 06:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mdhowe 23:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Sole 04:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Ian ≡ talk 07:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Fosnez 12:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Bduke 01:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Grumpyyoungman01 07:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Agnte 13:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Yes, Australia has its own space program, and it looks like the AUSROC project's coming along nicely [2]. Satellite launch technology in Australia on the whole could do with some expanding. - Diceman 17:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't know this institute existed, but I always wondered whether Australia was meddling in space. --cj | talk 12:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ACOTF from 5 March 2006 to 19 March 2006

Rum Rebellion (13 votes)

Nominated on January 27 2006 needs 14 votes by May 5 2006 to remain listed.

Support:

  1. Paul James Cowie 22:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sole 05:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Ambi 06:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Ian ≡ talk 07:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. A Y Arktos 08:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. cj | talk 15:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cnwb 06:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. -- Astrokey44|talk 15:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Linden Salter 00:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Grumpyyoungman01 08:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Bduke 11:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. bainer (talk) 11:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. User:Bobby1011 Bobby1011 01:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

the SMH article was fascinating, it doesn't seem to show on that page link but the author was Michael Duffy[3]A Y Arktos 08:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current article relies on Evatt's book which is thoroughly pro-Bligh, so the bias is evident, for example in the line "Macarthur avoided his punishment due as a traitor to the Crown" --Linden Salter 17:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ACOTF from 19 March 2006 to 2 April 2006

  • 6 contributors made 18 edits
  • The article increased from 2390 characters to 9280 characters - 3.8 times longer
  • See how much it changed

Australia Day

Nominated on January 26; needs 14 votes by May 4 to remain listed. Selected on 2 April 2006

Support:

  1. DynaBlast 06:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Paul James Cowie 10:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Slj 03:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. cj | talk 15:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jhohenzollern 03:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Fosnez 13:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Brisvegas 10:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Dpd 03:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Grumpyyoungman01 07:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. bjmurph talk‽ 10:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 06:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Lujan 08:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • The Australia Day article is very poor, and below Wikipedia standards. What better time to bring it up to the standard of a feature article then now, Australia Day 2006. I'm sure there's plenty more that could be said about Australia's national holiday. DynaBlast 06:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with these comments - I was surprised by the basic nature of the article. DEfinitely a candidate for improvement. Paul James Cowie 10:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might need work but I definitely don't consider it a stub. pfctdayelise (translate?) 21:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ACOTF from 2 April 2006 to 23 April 2006 (three weeks)


Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation

(13 votes)

Nominated on March 11 2006; needs 14 votes by 17 June 2006 to remain listed.

Support

  1. Paul James Cowie 10:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Bduke 11:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. pfctdayelise (translate?) 21:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Colonel Tom 02:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC) from a physics student.[reply]
  6. CrnaGora (Talk
  7. Kingpomba 07:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)|[reply]
  8. Diceman 15:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Donama 02:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. cj | talk 04:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Siliconflame 06:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Brisvegas 01:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Xdenizen 00:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • One of the great sources of scientific endeavour, discovery and innovation in Australia should rightly be celebrated with a far better article. Paul James Cowie 10:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes as a person who may have a future in the science industry i would like to see this article be worked on. Kingpomba 07:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A good candidate but couldn't seem to find any information on the organisation outside of CSIRO websites (this may not matter). - Diceman 15:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


ACOTF from 23 April 2006 to May 7 2006

  • 9 contributors made 20 edits
  • The article increased from 461 words (3020 characters) to 976 words (6280 characters) - over 2 times longer
  • See how it changed

Surf lifesaving

Nominated on February 8 2006; Selected on 7 May 2006.

Support:

  1. Witty lama 04:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Bduke 05:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Andjam 10:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Grumpyyoungman01 08:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. CHANLORD [T]/[C] 22:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Colonel Tom 02:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Brisvegas 10:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Bambul 04:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 06:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Siliconflame 06:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. --Picard777 15:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • This page, though not a stub, is a really important peice of Australian culture that has a remarkably short amount on it. I recently created the page for the nippers game called flags (sport) and discovered just how shallow the depth of information on this page is. There isn't even a picture of a beach, a set of red & yellow flags a clubhouse or a surf lifesaver. There really should be a list of Surf Lifesaving clubs too - at present there isn't even a page at SLSC, Surf carnival or March past! For such important heritage with a universal knowedge of what they do (amongst Australians) this page can do much better. Furthermore, this page is of interest to an iternational audience and therefore could very easily be picked as "Today's Featured Article" on the Main page if it were up to scratch. Witty lama
    • Thanks for the flags article. Andjam 10:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ACOTF from 7 May 2006 to 21 May 2006 having been selected with 11 votes.

  • 5 contributors made 8 edits
  • The article increased from 5.4 kb (4.7 kb when nominated) to 6.2 kb
  • See how it changed

Australian Football Hall of Fame

Nominated on March 3 2006; selected on 21 May 2006.

Support

  1. Rogerthat Talk 11:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Grumpyyoungman01 12:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 12:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. GizzaChat © 07:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 06:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. sliat_1981 5:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Jasrocks 12:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Normy 10:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. TheRealAntonius 23:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Anubis1975 05:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: It has undergone significant vandalism from the Association football brigade, even though it exists as Australian Football Hall of Fame as its official title. Needs expansion to assert its notability.

Disagree, there needs to be a clear differentiation between true football and Australian rules football, the changes by the 'soccer' people should stand. Thanks, Como006 15:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We've been through this before - it was decided that since the AFL have a trademark on the official title of "Australian Football Hall of Fame" that the association football hall of fame should also go by its official title, which is: "Football Federation Australia - Football Hall of Fame". Rogerthat Talk 04:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Enough of this nonsense. I have transferred all relevant Australian rules footballers to Category:Australian Football Hall of Fame as had been agreed in AWNB. Use of the term "true football" is NPOV, see the excellent article Football. In any place, it is impossible to "disagree" with the legal position that the term is owned and used by the AFL. Legalities aside, does anyone here really believe that a soccer hall of fame can be placed at the same Australian cultural and historical apex currently occupied by the Australian Football Hall of Fame? Of what importance is soccer history in Australia? Where is the importance of soccer in Australian culture? Boys (and it is mostly boys that attend soccer games, crowds at aussie rules games are almost 50/50 across the sexes), let us understand one thing here, you are not even remotely in the ball game! ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 02:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ACOTF from 21 May 2006 to 4 June 2006

Mining in Australia

Nominated on 25 April 2006; needs 10 votes by July 6 2006 to remain listed. Selected 4 June 2006

Support:

  1. Scott Davis Talk 05:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Colonel Tom 13:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC) This seems to be quite an omission.[reply]
  3. Ambi 02:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Fluit 01:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Considering how important it is as an industry in Oz. — Донама 01:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mitch119 11:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I@n ≡ talk 02:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cvene64 13:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. MyNameIsNotBob 07:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Alphax τεχ 02:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

ACOTF from 4 June 2006 to 18 June 2006

Census in Australia

Nominated on 12 April 2006; needs 10 votes by June 21 2006 to remain listed. Selected on June 18 2006

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]

ACOTF from 18 June 2006 to 2 July 2006

  • 9 contributors made 40 edits
  • The article increased from 1 kb to 13 kb - 13 times longer
  • See how it changed

History of Australia series

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

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]
  9. Shiftchange 15:02, 25 June 2006

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]

ACOTF from 2 July 2006 to 16 July 2006

Military history of Australia during World War II

Nominated on 2 June 2006; needs 6 votes by 14 July 2006 to remain listed. Selected 16 July 2006

Support:

  1. --Astrokey44 05:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Shogun 02:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Nick Dowling 10:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. CG 14:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Ian Page 11:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Scott Davis

Comments:

  • Just noticed this poor stub on a subject which deserves a much longer article --Astrokey44 05:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I started this entry in order to spark an eventual expansion, and definetly agree that it's a suitable topic for a group effort. --Nick Dowling 10:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ACOTF from 2 July 2006 to ... 2006

Australian_Bicentenary

Nominated on 6 July 2006; needs 4 votes by 3 August 2006 to remain listed. Selected 30 July 2006.

Support:

  1. JROBBO 07:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Robert Merkel 08:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Grumpyyoungman01 08:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Donama 04:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Rebecca 05:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --WA Burdett 02:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • This article should detail a really important event in Australia's recent history, the 1988 Bicentenary Events, as well as the 1970 events for the Captain Cook Bicentenary. More happened than just Expo 88, there was the First State 88 Exhibition in Sydney, the Australia Day celebrations, etc. This article could do with a good deal of expansion. (JROBBO 07:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    • I think this article should focus on the latter, which is I think rather more notable than the former. It could and should have a disambiguation header to the former though. Rebecca 05:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Celebration of the Nation! Who still has their bicentenary medallion? --Robert Merkel 08:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just wish that I was old enough to enjoy it at the time. Grumpyyoungman01 08:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ACOTF from 30 July 2006 to 13 August 2006

Australian constitutional crisis of 1975

Nominated on 31 July 2006; needs 2 votes by 14 August 2006 to remain listed. Selected 13 August 2006

Support:

  1. -- Todd661 04:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Lots of potential, important subject. --Iorek85 08:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This topic should be a featured article. -- Grumpyyoungman01 09:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Let's get jiggy with it. --SilasM 11:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Imperator Honorius 13:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. WA Burdett 07:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. -- Wwwhhh 09:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Probably the most significant event in the political history of Australia - excluding Federation. The article currently has a lot of information, but needs to be organised and referenced. Has potential to be FAC in the very near future.

ACOTF from 13 August 2006 to 27 August 2006

Australian wine

Nominated on August 14 2006; needs 8 votes by October 9 2006 to remain listed. Selected 27 August 2006

Support:

  1. cj | talk 19:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Rebecca 05:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Brisvegas 05:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Hide&Reason 11:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Comte0 22:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Scott Davis Talk 09:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Longhair 09:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • A major aspect of the Australian economy and significant worldwide with a presently dismal article.--cj | talk 19:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It'd be great to see this one on Main. And how well are oenological topics covered about WP generally?

ACOTF from 27 August 2006 to 17 September 2006

  • 16 contributors made 38 edits
  • The article increased from X to X - X times longer
  • See how it changed

National Gallery of Australia

Nominated on August 14 2006; needs 8 votes by October 9 2006 to remain listed. Selected 17 September 2006

Support:

  1. cj | talk 19:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Rebecca 05:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Peta 05:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. -- benzo ? ♠♠ 02:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Arktos talk 02:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Maecenas 14:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Jen Powell-Psmith 17:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • While other national institutions such as the Library and Musuem have reasonable articles (though far from good), this one seems to be have been left behind. It could do with a collaborative expansion.--cj | talk 19:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Curse my lack of a camera. Rebecca 05:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The pics aren't bad, there are all sorts of problems with taking pics of the actual art. The articles real problem is the total lack of detail.--Peta 05:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. The National Gallery of Australia is one of the premier art galleries for Indigenous Australians in the world. It certainly needs to be cleaned up. -- benzo ? ♠♠ 02:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that more should be done on the art, although I have perhaps jumped the gun by adding more content on the building and its design (mainly). Maecenas 14:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ACOTF from 17 September 2006 to 15 October 2006

Gough Whitlam

Nominated on August 22 2006; needs 4 votes by September 19 2006 to remain listed. Selected 15 October 2006

Support:

  1. Longhair 14:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Arktos talk 01:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Todd661 22:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jen Powell-Psmith 10:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Donama 06:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. cj | talk 03:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: This article is so close to Featured Article status it's not funny, let's make an attempt to achieve it. -- Longhair 14:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A FORMER FEATURED ARTICLE...Lots of information, just needs to be organised to bring it up to standard. Very easy to do in 2 weeks.
  • This article doesn't need serious work; ACOTF is for articles that don't exist or do need a lot of work, like CSIRO or Mining in Australia were when they featured here, as far as I was aware. It's Time to make this a currently featured article, but is this the forum to push for that effort? Peace,Minmi 10:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ACOTF from 15 October 2006 to 29 October 2006

Bringing Them Home

Nominated on 27 August 2006; needs 6 votes by October 29 2006 to remain listed. Selected 29 October 2006.

Nearly 10 years old and still controversial, relevant and important. Recent - so lots of easy-to-source material.

Support:

  1. pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Rebecca 23:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. bainer (talk) 00:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. cj | talk 11:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. MojoTas 06:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Phaedrus86 22:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Donama 02:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC) (support in principle but not sure this is the best title; are there not already articles around this theme existing? — Donama 02:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Comments:

  • I'm amazed we don't have an article on this. Rebecca 23:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To Donama: it's the name of a specific report. pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ACOTF from 29 October 2006 to 12 November 2006

  • 10 contributors made 57 edits
  • The article increased from 1.2 kb to 10.9 kb - 9 times longer
  • See how it changed

United States-Australia relations

Nominated on November 3 2006; needs 12 votes by January 26 2006 to remain listed. Selected 12 November 2006

Support:

  1. Sharkface217 02:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. evrik (talk) 04:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mike | Talk 04:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. riana_dzasta 05:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Húsönd 05:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Siva1979Talk to me 11:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Arjun 16:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Orane (talk • cont.) 19:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. JackofOz 23:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 05:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Ed ¿Cómo estás? 15:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • I started this article a while ago and have been updating it almost completely by myself. I do believe it to be important, as Australia and the United States are both politically but also culturally tied in ways that few other countries are. The Japanese-Australian relations page is at least 4 times as large as the US Australia relations page (without all the messy tags at the top). Sharkface217 02:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article should get more support. --evrik (talk) 04:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Important Australia article that can be expanded a lot. - Mike | Talk 04:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Sharkface217, the nominator, has been blocked for spamming many user talk pages with requests to vote for this item. He had previously given a barnstar to many of these same users. - BanyanTree 05:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's important is not why people vote, but that voters contribute if that candidate is selected. --Scott Davis Talk 22:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • THis is an important topic IMO, the content could be better.--Arjun 16:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether or not Sharkface's influence has been appropriate, this article is an important topic and definitely needs to be expanded. JackofOz 23:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was actually deterred to vote for this candidate given the spamming, however the fact that this article is so important in today's society, it managed to over-ride this minor issue. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 05:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for all the spamming. I never bothered to read Wikipedia's policy concerning canvassing or campaigning. Sharkface217 20:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the very short length of the article, and the fact that US-Australian relations are important led me to vote.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 15:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ACOTF from 12 November 2006 to 26 November 2006

Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Nominated on 30 August 2006; needs 10 votes by December 3 2006 to remain listed. Selected on 26 November 2006

Support:

  1. cj | talk 11:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Hide&Reason 11:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jen Powell-Psmith 10:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jeffklib 06:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Donama 06:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kinnoutou 11:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Chuq 07:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. riana_dzasta 05:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • I know the ideal candidate for collaboration is more a stub article, but I feel this article could be helped by ACOTF (in the way History of Australia was). It needs a structural overhaul (ABC TV needs to separated, for example) and to be rewritten in summary style.--cj | talk 11:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whole sections of this (particularly the history) are copy-pastes from other sites. Did some minor g/p and structural tidying last night. What it really needs is some more images and citations! Hide&Reason 11:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is very topical with current restructure and industrial action.

ACOTF from 26 November 2006 to 10 December 2006

  • 16 contributors made 98 edits
  • The article increased from 3064 words (19287 characters) to 4363 words (27623 characters) -about 43% longer
  • See how it changed

Torres Strait Islanders

Nominated on October 3 2006; needs 10 votes by 16 December 2006 to remain listed. Selected 10 December 2006

Support:

  1. — Donama 06:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. JP Psmith 09:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. cj | talk 03:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Scott Davis Talk 12:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kinnoutou 12:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. riana_dzasta 05:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. JROBBO 10:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. WikiTownsvillian 09:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Ghostieguide 06:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Is barely more than a stub. — Donama 06:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be happy to help. JP Psmith 09:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Shouldn't need much work to get to FA. Pretty obvious australian critter and there aren't a huge number of biology FACs. Wikipedia may lack a bit in these areas.Cas Liber 01:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article can always be expanded, as kangaroos are among the most identifiable and beloved animals worldwide.Sharkface217 03:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't too bad but will need a bit of work. Good idea though. Yuanchosaan 08:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


ACOTF from 10 December 2006 to 25 December 2006

  • 4 contributors made 11 edits
  • The article increased from 161 words to 369 words - 2.3 times longer
  • See how it changed

Kangaroo

Nominated on 26 October 2006; needs 8 votes by 21 December 2006 to remain listed. Selected with 8 votes on 25 December 2006

Support:

  1. Cas Liber 01:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. cj | talk 05:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. riana_dzasta 05:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Figaro 09.14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Sharkface217 03:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Yuanchosaan 08:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Athol Mullen 23:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kinnoutou 07:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ACOTF from 25 December 2006 to 7 January 2007

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Australian_Collaboration_of_the_Fortnight/History/Archive_2006&oldid=1082306302"