A very basic article with barely any structure or introductory information that could use some attention. --
Tom (LT) (
talk) 03:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Stub class, high importance article --
CSJJ104 (
talk) 21:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment - I would like to support, unfortunately, it is already nominated into the Holding Area at the moment. It is no. 252 on the Holding Area.
Qwertyxp2000 (
talk) 22:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Thank you for pointing out my mistake. Please feel free to remove this nomination if you feel that's appropriate. --
CSJJ104 (
talk) 10:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Currently just a list. Would benefit readers by being fleshed out, edited so lay readers can understand it, and increasing the depth of the coverage (ie making it from a list into a discursive format). --
Tom (LT) (
talk) 01:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Stub in need of formatting, and expansion. --
CSJJ104 (
talk) 20:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment There's a
PROD up on it at the moment as it hasn't been updated in over 7 years. Might not be notable enough to keep. --☣Anarchyte☣ 09:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Where is the deletion discussion page please? I can't find it at
CAT:AFD --
CSJJ104 (
talk) 21:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC)reply
@
CSJJ104: Someone used a PROD, which has been contested. Was PROD not AFD.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 21:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support – I have added some sources demonstrating
notability to the article. A most notable topic and great contender for improvements. North America1000 22:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support No idea why this was PRODed, important article that can definitely be massively improved.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 22:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support An extremely important article concerning society in general.
Rubbishcomputer 00:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Support Needs a major update. --Anarchyte 10:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Just came across this, such a broad topic, but current article is just a stub.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 21:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support - may be potentially useful if expanded.
Qwertyxp2000 (
talk) 09:41, 30 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support - Unreferenced and should be easy to expand --
CSJJ104 (
talk) 21:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose - A very basic article that doesn't really need to exist. It would be better if it was in the "
Culture" article with its own section. --Anarchyte 11:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Support-appears to be a broad topic relative to its size.
Rubbishcomputer 19:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Significant potential for improvements, and many sources are available for expansion (e.g. this
Google Books search). North America1000 10:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support Little more than a list at present --
CSJJ104 (
talk) 20:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support This needs so much updating. I'll try cleaning up some bias now. --Anarchyte 10:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Support Currently half the references are about 1 restaurant.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 23:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)reply
A Level 4 vital article in Geography and an article on a sovereign state which still needs a large number of references adding as well as general improvement from C-class.
Rubbishcomputer 14:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Support So many citation needed and other tags on it.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 14:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Support So many citations needed signs. --Anarchyte 11:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Support - countries need improvement.
Qwertyxp2000 (
talk) 04:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Could be massively improved from the corresponding article in other languages. --Anarchyte 07:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Support-It hasn't been given an importance rating but in addition to Anarchyte's points it has no references, is advert like, needs a total rewrite, needs expert attention... and has over 4000 views in the past 30 days.
Rubbishcomputer 22:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Support For reasons above --
CSJJ104 (
talk) 16:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Rated at B-class despite two sections tagged as needing more sources and several citation needed templates in the article. North America1000 07:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support Many existing citations are also dead links or need more info --
CSJJ104 (
talk) 20:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose Already a B-class, only needs a bit of work.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 22:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose From what I can see, all that needs updating is the references in a few sections. --Anarchyte 11:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose This does not appear to be sufficiently important or rubbish enough.
Rubbishcomputer 22:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Any which way, I would have voted oppose for this one, although the rules here say about 3 net opposing votes.
Qwertyxp2000 (
talk) 07:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Support-Level 4 Vital in Technology, also Mid importance in Physics, can easily be expanded, over 200 hits per day.
Rubbishcomputer 18:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Support - because I find it potentially useful.
Qwertyxp2000 (
talk) 07:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Support-Far too short, Top importance, over 3,000 views in past 30 days, only a stub and just 1 reference.
Rubbishcomputer 17:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Level 4 Vital importance article. Was once rated Good Article but became badly neglected & fell into disrepair. Substantial interest: 3746 hits in 1st week June. Been extensively reworked over past few weeks but still plenty of room for improvement -- esp. consistent citation style, etc.
41.162.131.130 (
talk) 18:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
41.162.131.130 (
talk) 11:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Receives significant page views. Some room for expansion, and would benefit from organization, copy editing, images, layout, more sources and updating (2010s section). It's the main article for a series of articles about the history of video games (see box at right). North America1000 02:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Support 1800ish views a day, and so much original research/unsourced content.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 23:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Support-Page views, Top importance in Wikiprojects Computing and Video games and High importance in WikiProject Japan, only C-class, original research.
Rubbishcomputer 17:10, 5 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Needs a major update. --Anarchyte 07:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose Only 10 page views a day, don't think it's a very important article.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 17:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose-
This shows there are over 2000 mid-importance law articles like this one- from random clicking it appears more than one tenth of these are stubs. Not important enough.
Rubbishcomputer 17:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)reply
{{not approved}} There are 3 net opposing votes. Note that some of those nominations had 1 support vs 3 oppose. That made only 2 net opposing votes. This has 3 opposing votes.
Qwertyxp2000 (
talk) 07:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Needs to "kick" the standards higher, I mean, this article needs more improvement, especially because it has a good potential of improving.
Qwertyxp2000 (
talk) 09:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Support It seems too important for its quality and it's got over 4,000 page views in the past 30 days.
Rubbishcomputer 12:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)reply
For starters, most of the sections in the article's
Games section consist of very short paragraphs. North America1000 02:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Support Most of the games section is short and unreferenced, the rest can be improved too.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 11:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Support A Level 4 Vital article in Life, 15,224 page views in the past 30 days, only C class, general lack of sourcing.
Rubbishcomputer 23:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Disambiguation pages are always extremely easy to expand. This would-be article is about the media franchise which includes a novel and two films, among other things.
Coin945 (
talk) 18:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose - but I don't tend to favour this article because I don't get this worldwide influence feeling, not even of a specific location.
Qwertyxp2000 (
talk |
contribs) 07:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Support - Oh yes, that could be expandable. Sorry for not being open.
Qwertyxp2000 (
talk |
contribs) 07:57, 9 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Support - expansion possible.--
BabbaQ (
talk) 08:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Article in need of help bascially. Formatting, possible small expansions on different parts of the mans life of crime. Crimes that spans from USA to Australia. --
BabbaQ (
talk) 08:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Support:Per page view stats, along with being C class.
Rubbishcomputer 14:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Support: needs help with citations, and agree with nom re: expansions.
Onel5969TT me 18:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Support: Seems to need a little more organization and stronger references. --GouramiWatcher(?) 02:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Disambiguation pages are always extremely easy to expand. This would-be article talks about the concept in general.
Coin945 (
talk) 18:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Disambiguation pages are always extremely easy to expand. This would-be article explores the concept in general rather than talking about a specific country.
Coin945 (
talk) 18:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Disambiguation pages are always extremely easy to expand. This would-be article would explore the concept of survival beyond what the current
self-preservation covers.
Coin945 (
talk) 18:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Disambiguation pages are always extremely easy to expand. This would-be article is about the actual concept of "person of the year" and how it has been realised in various contexts.
Coin945 (
talk) 18:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Disambiguation pages are always extremely easy to expand. This would-be article is just as broad and all-encompassing as
Asian people.
Coin945 (
talk) 18:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Disambiguation pages are always extremely easy to expand. This would-be article is about extinct birds.
Coin945 (
talk) 18:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Disambiguation pages are always extremely easy to expand. This would-be article groups all leader-related uses together and explains how the term "captain" is used across various fields in this capacity, while all unrelated items (like movies called Captain) are moved to
Captain (disambiguation).
Coin945 (
talk) 18:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)reply
A sport that is starting to become popular in many places worldwide. It is a sport broadcast on Eurosport. It needs expansion. --
BabbaQ (
talk) 23:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Support per over 3,000 page views in the past 30 days, only Start class.
Rubbishcomputer 04:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Support - very popular sport. Looking at Google Books there is
over 5,000 books. Would be easy to get references. Out of the 1000 pictures in commons, there should be an interesting picture that can be picked for the article. = picked one!--
Doug Coldwell (
talk) 11:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Support - page views say them all. All we need is someone to approve because I am not good at approving things.
Qwertyxp2000 (
talk |
contribs) 09:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Support- I got completely wrong statistics and opposed this as a result, either because I was tired and clicked on the wrong thing or because my computer was playing up. Sorry for any confusion I may have caused. Support because it's a high importance stub and it's got over 2,000 page views in the past 30 days.
Rubbishcomputer 17:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Support[1] says 2675 views in 30 days, which is about 85/day. High importance article with basically no content.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 17:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)reply
The article has bad referencing in some parts, a few {{
who}} and {{
citation needed}} tags. --Anarchyte 07:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Support-Level 1 vital article, over 90,000 page views in the past 30 days (more than 100 times as many as this page!), about something so everyday, should at least be a Good article.
Rubbishcomputer 19:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Support Was thinking of nominating this the other day.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 19:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC) (readding since it got deleted by an edit conflict)reply
Turn the enormous list of forms of address into a table and the rest of the article turns out to be alarmingly short.
TBP25 (
talk) 12:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Support. Rated at B-class, but is weak in sourcing. Good candidate for expansion too. North America1000 07:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support. Absolutely rubbish referencing, about a basic subject, ranked as top importance in Wikiproject law and a Level 4 vital article in society.
Rubbishcomputer 19:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment Is this actually a serious thing? Because I've never heard of it before, and I'm usually quite knowledgeable about sport.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 20:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose - As per Anarchyte, it covers all the points, is well referenced and has good pictures, what needs drastically improving on it?
Joseph2302 (
talk) 01:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose - A satisfactory article (see reasons above.)
Rubbishcomputer 17:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)reply
No references, old article and needs updating. Seems like an advert as well.
Anarchyte (
talk) 11:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose - this is an old type of Trojan horse that does not affect today's society. It did prior to 2005 or so, as it had affected
XP's. The virus was discontinued on late 2004 and would have its viral issues solved by most antiviruses.
Qwertyxp2000 (
talk) 06:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose As above, it's not relevant nowadays, and therefore its improvement is less important than other articles.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 22:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support Definitely can be improved, and has reasonable high page view stats, 1300 in 30 days. In reply to concerns mentioned above, no it is not relevant today, but neither are the historical articles we improve. --
CSJJ104 (
talk) 19:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose No longer seems sufficiently important due to its irrelevance.
Rubbishcomputer 11:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)reply
(removed unapproved template previously in place here) North America1000 00:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Northamerica1000: Why has this been marked as unapproved? It seems to meet neither the criteria of 21 days with no discussion, last comment was 7 June, and does not have three net opposed votes, as indicated at the top of this page is necessary. --
CSJJ104 (
talk) 10:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)reply
@
CSJJ104: The way things have been done here in the past, unless I'm missing something, is that after three opposes, unless there are also three supports, entries are not approved. At the top of the page, it states, "Unsuccessful nominations can be archived after 21 days of no discussion or after 3 net opposing votes." North America1000 16:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment – I get it now. Since there's a support above, the total net opposing votes total 2. As such, I have removed the unapproved template above. North America1000 00:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Bad referencing in some sections, needs an overall cleanup. --Anarchyte 11:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment: Who nominated this? You need to sign it.
Rubbishcomputer 22:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)reply
From the page history, it appears to have been @
Anarchyte: who nominated it.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 22:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)reply
I put ~~~~~ instead of ~~~~ on the page, sorry. --Anarchyte 01:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Support Mid importance on both its projects, over 2000 page views in the past 30 days, plenty of work left to do.
Rubbishcomputer 00:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Very basic article that could be expanded on via the versions in other languages.
Anarchyte (
talk) 05:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support In need of copyedit of language used. --
CSJJ104 (
talk) 19:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose Low importance on WikiProjects Switzerland and History, there are
2031 articles needing copy edit as I write this, some of them many times longer than this.
Rubbishcomputer 00:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose Low-importance article, only 8 views in last 30 days.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 18:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment: @
Joseph2302: I'm afraid that is incorrect, there are 207 views in the last 30 days at the time of writing this.
Rubbishcomputer 15:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)reply
High-importance article, huge number of hits, but some completely unreferenced sections- think B class is a bit generous.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 00:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose - you don't simply ask for citations in this WikiProject. This WikiProject seems better suited for improving the articles' content, not really so much the citations.
Qwertyxp2000 (
talk -
contributions) 04:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Has plenty of potential for improvements. North America1000 12:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment: Actually 834 views in 30 days. Once again, either I was falling asleep or my computer was. Sorry.
Rubbishcomputer 22:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose I've switched to oppose because of its ranking as Low importance and modest page views.
Rubbishcomputer 12:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose If the proposer doesn't think it's worthy any more, there's no hope of it being approve. Also, low-importance.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 11:49, 7 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment: @
Joseph2302: I did vote Support before but Northamerica1000 was the proposer. Sorry to point out mistakes.
Rubbishcomputer 15:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)reply
A Level 4 vital article in People, an article on a President of the Philippines from 1986 to 1992, appears to be seriously lacking references in places, should be easy to improve. Emphasising the article's importance, a Did You Know...? fact from it has been featured on the main page 6 years in a row and a news item related to the article was on the main page in 2009
verify.
Rubbishcomputer 12:58, 6 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Support It hasn't had a DYK every year, it's had an "On this day" which is for selected anniversaries. Definitely still shows its importance though, and article needs some improving.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 11:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)reply
The refimprove template doesn't do it justice; there are easily 200 unsourced statements in this article, they just don't have cn tags. This article has also been marked as needing immediate attention.
Rubbishcomputer 23:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose All it needs is 200 citations,and if you look at the articles of the saints, most of them will probably have citations you can use.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 23:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Neutrality problems since May 2014, viewed often, poor referencing. While there are many articles with neutrality problems this one seems important regardless of how it is ranked; it is something I imagine some people have heard of but few have in-depth knowledge of. If Wikipedia had a good article on this it would improve public knowledge.
Rubbishcomputer 12:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose In my opinion, this article should just be added as a section of
Bowls#Variations of play instead- it quite clearly defines itself as a variation of bowls.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 11:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Plenty of potential for expansion in the various country sections, several sections have no sources, and some would benefit from more. North America1000 20:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)reply