text:
User talk:CadetDru

Welcome to Wikipedia
Hey! Long time no see! And welcome to Wikipedia, too. Schuminweb 11:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC) -- Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few more good links for to help you get started:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Herostratus 11:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:CadetDru


text:
User talk:Kedardandekar

Welcome! to Wikipedia!
Hello, this is Gurubrahma, and I hope that you are having fun with Wikipedia. First of all, welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that any one can edit! Find something that can be improved, either in content, grammar or formatting, then fix it. Don't be afraid. Be bold!. If you do something wrong, there is always someone who will clean up the mess.

Here are some links that you may find helpful:
 * Be bold!
 * Introduction
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The Tutorial, How to edit a page and the Manual of Style
 * Community Portal to get some work
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia, the Simplified Ruleset, and What Wikipedia is not
 * Wikiquette, the Wikipedian etiquette

Here are also some tips that you might find useful:
 * Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ )
 * Create a User page so that others can know you
 * Add yourself to the New user log and the list of Wikipedians
 * Go to the Village Pump or the Help Desk if you need Wikipedia related help, or the Reference Desk for general questions.

India related links
All the best! Enjoy your stay on Wikipedia!!

title: User talk:Kedardandekar


text: Talk:Hawaiian lava sledding

title: Talk:Hawaiian lava sledding


text:
Canadian Conservation Institute

The Canadian Conservation Institute (CCI; Institut canadien de conservation) is a special operating agency of the federal Department of Canadian Heritage that provides research, information, and services regarding the conservation and preservation of cultural artifacts.

Materials and media it handles includes paper, textiles, metals, and glass, as well as electronic media, such as audio tape and compact discs. The CCI offices are located in the Ottawa suburb of Gloucester.

Mission
The CCI is recognized as a pioneer and leader in the conservation of cultural heritage in Canada. The CCI supports the heritage community in preserving Canada's heritage collections so they can be accessed by current and future generations. The CCI is charged with the duty "to promote the proper care and preservation of Canada's moveable cultural heritage, and to advance the practice, science, and technology of conservation."

History
The CCI originated within the National Gallery of Canada in 1957, as its Conservation and Scientific Research Division under the leadership of Dr. Nathan Stolow. In 1964, the division was granted greater autonomy and became the National Conservation Research Laboratory ("NCRL"). As a result of its success, in 1972 the NCRL was split off from the National Gallery of Canada and was renamed the Canadian Conservation Institute with Dr. Stolow as its first Director General. It now operates as an agency of the federal government of Canada, currently under the auspices of the Department of Canadian Heritage.

The CCI is primarily a research organization, but provides education and services on conservation and restoration-related matters. The CCI now promotes the proper care and preservation of Canada's cultural heritage and to advance the practice, science, and technology of conservation. The institute has worked closely with hundreds of Canadian museums, art galleries, archives, libraries, historic sites, academic institutions, and other heritage organizations to help them better preserve their collections. The primary role of CCI's clients is to acquire, conserve, research, communicate, and exhibit permanent heritage collections that are accessible to the Canadian public for purposes of study, education, and enjoyment. As a Special Operating Agency of the Department of Canadian Heritage, CCI has widened its scope of activities and now markets its services and products around the world. The CCI was included amongst other architecturally interesting and historically significant buildings in Doors Open Ottawa, held June 2, 2012.

Programs
The following are but some of the services CCI provides:

 * Conservation research and laboratory services.
 * Preventative and restorative conservation.
 * Transportation of artifacts.
 * Scientific examination and analysis of museum objects and archaeological materials.
 * Advice on preserving a historic house or property.
 * Collections assessment surveys.
 * Advice for conservation or restoration treatment for valuable works of art.
 * Conservation and restoration training.

CCI also provides project-specific teams for conservation, scientific, and testing projects. Its Paper Group works with archives and libraries in preserving and restoring their collections. Research conducted by the Paper Group includes paper bleaching, enzyme use, washing, and de-acidification. The CCI also self-publishes a variety of materials related to its work. As well, each year it publishes the CCI, the Journal of the Canadian Conservation Institute. With a staff of about 80 to 100, the CCI has treated more than 13,000 objects for the heritage community, has published hundreds of scientific papers, and has distributed in excess of one million publications. The institute responds to at least 2,000 requests for assistance annually. Working together in well-equipped, fully secure, climate-controlled laboratories, conservators, chemists, engineers, biologists, and other professionals handle projects ranging from information inquiries to complex treatments and research.

title: Canadian Conservation Institute


text:
Wikipedia talk:Collaboration of the week/Archive 7

This Week
For this week starting June 19, the collaborations are the top nominees from WP:COTW, and that project is temporarily suspended? Phoenix2 17:44, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * The highest, and then the next highest which is of a different "topic" is how I imagine things should go. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:45, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Yea that sounds good. I guess closer to the end of the week we would have to have another vote deciding if people liked the new configuration, and to eventually remove the single COTW page. Phoenix2 17:47, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Personally I think doing it for two weeks would give a clearer picture of how things will turn out - we shouldn't be too hasty over a big change like this. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:51, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Why did we start a new page, when we could just temporarily host two at COTW? — Sverdrup 19:28, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Mainly due to the fact there is a change in the way articles are nominated, and this would be confusing if both were on the same page. This way involves no (substantial) change to the original page, so in the event that we choose not to go ahead with having 2 CotW's, it is simple to change back to the single format. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Templates
I will go ahead and created modified templates for multiple collaborations. Phoenix2 17:48, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Cheers, I've already created two templates, cotw1 and cotw2 in which the names (only) of the two article titles should be written. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:50, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * There is no reason for exclusion of the date in the section header. You should modify the template to include the end date in the section header.   ℬ astique ▼ talk 17:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

New nominations
I somehow remember that the new nominations used to be placed at the very bottom of the page, but now people post them right on top above everything. Is it a mistake on the part of the newcomers or some new rule? Also, we should probably tell people that they have to put dividers between the nominations. KNewman 12:32, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

 * It's a new procedure - read the nomination articles guidelines on the project page. w.r.t. dividers, I don't see why they are needed as headings are being used. Talrias (t | e | c) 12:44, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * This procedure makes very little sense. Was this an individual decision? These kind of changes should not be made without some sort of consultation with those other people who are involved with this page.  I think the templates are great, and you've done a good job.  You may not have considered that there are reasons for the old way of doing things when you decided on your changes.   ℬ astique ▼ talk 17:15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Would you add the dividers to the new templates? They really do make a difference in navigation of the page.   ℬ astique ▼ talk 17:17, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * You could have been bold and make that change yourself, but I've done it now :) With regards to the date in the template, I originally removed that so I could update the template one adds to the article to say it has been nominated as a collaboration to have a direct link to the nomination, but this does not work if the date is added to the heading. Possibly an alternative would be to have the date it needs to receive X amounts of votes by as a next-level heading, which would solve both (albeit at having the contents listing twice as long).

 * No, no... I am loathe to step on other people's toes or templates. Ah yes.  Now I understand about the date.  This is a conundrum.   ℬ astique ▼ talk 17:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * If you think that having the newest nominations listed at the bottom is better, please go ahead and modify the instructions. I was just curious as to why you were doing it, seeing as it said otherwise. I've no objection to this change - my original reason for making it was so that it's less far to scroll down to see any new nominees, rather than having to scroll all the way to the bottom, past nominations you would have already read (I was trying to make it more convenient for people). Talrias (t | e | c) 17:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've simplified the template a bit, and also changed the "next Sunday" bit back to "in seven days" when modifying the instructions.--Pharos 20:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I've already tried that when testing, it doesn't work (re: the ~ in the template). The signature gets expanded, but it is still wrapped in the nowiki tags. Did you try testing it? Talrias (t | e | c) 23:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ack. The new nomination system is needlessly complicated and stinks of instruction creep. D AVODD  01:58, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

 * Actually, I tend to agree. I don't think the new system has really made anything easier, and just tends to multiply things.--Pharos 02:13, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * May I ask how it is more complicated than the previous nomination system? Talrias (t | e | c) 11:06, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * What used to be a one-step editing process for nominating has grown to a multi-step process that requires the creation of subpages. We've succeeded in solving a problem that didn't exist with a labrynthine process that discourages new contributions by folks who are not expert at understanding the WP file structure. That is what I mean by more complicated - and by instruction creep. ;-) D AVODD   19:25, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Next week
Do we need to have another vote deciding if people like the new format? We need to determine if we are returning to one collaboration or sticking with two. Phoenix2 17:48, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I thought this was going to be a 2 week trial period. --ZeWrestler 18:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's clear how long the trial period will be. I guess we'll figure it out on Sunday. Phoenix2 17:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Purge the cache to refresh this page
It just links to Categories for deletion. Falphin 21:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Well now you know where I copied it from :) ... OK, it's fixed now.--Pharos 21:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OLD collaborations
I posted a similar statement on the COTWs template talk page but I figured I should post it here to. I came accross several other COTWs that havn't been that active but never declared inactive. So I decided to post the on the COTWs template since they have never been there. If they don't get any attention then we should put the inactive template on the COTWs but I thought we would give them some time. Falphin 18:55, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Both history?
Wasn't the point of having two collaborations so that two completely different realms can get improved? Isn't that defeating the purpose by having two history articles, even though they're for two separate places? Mike H (Talking is hot) 00:15, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * I thought so, I think that Southeast Asia should be on there.(I just got back). Falphin 02:15, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes the problem with having two collaborations is this, and that an article may not be selected because of its similarity to other nominations, not because of its lack of votes. [[Image:PhoenixSuns 100.png|20px]]Phoenix2[[Image:Teamflag1.png|20px]] 03:22, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I raised this question earlier (see the original discussion of a trial run at Wikipedia_talk:Collaboration_of_the_week), but I guess we'll see whether similarity really does hurt the project. NatusRoma 03:49, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * So how does this work now? Both history?  instead of 2 different cats? --ZeWrestler 03:58, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I think we should ensure that if we ever do skip over a winner, it will not be removed in the coming week do to lack of votes. That would defeat the purpose too. Otherwise I'm all for whatever works best. --Dmcdevit 04:16, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree that having two COTWs from similar areas is, at best, contradicting the point of haveing two and at worst being counterproductive, in that it halve the potential 'workforce' of historians. Surely, the objective is to ensure that there is more chance that any one person will be able to contribute something. However, I admit that how this might be averted, I don't know. How about splitting COTW potentials into two streams, depending on their subject area, and selecting one from each? For example, 1) the Arts, Humanities, Popular Culture, and 2) the Sciences, the Physical World. --Mark Lewis 29 June 2005 14:24 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it needs to be that divided because we might end up with a COTW that doesn't have 10votes and otherwise wouldn't be selected. Personally I believe that articles should be categorically seperate.(ex:Culture,History,Arts, Sciences, etc.) 29 June 2005 14:45 (UTC)

Archiving
Unless someone objects or has a better idea I was going to archive them in the one we have always used just making two tables Falphin 29 June 2005 12:45 (UTC)
 * rather than making 2 tables, you could add 2 new rows to the old table. one per COTW.  --ZeWrestler 29 June 2005 15:53 (UTC)
 * Thats actually what I meant. Sorry for the confusion. Since no one objects yet I will go ahead and archive. They can always be removed if someone does. Falphin 29 June 2005 16:03 (UTC)

Extended time
Should we have extended time for the articles that are to be removed since we lost two days during the upgrade.Falphin 29 June 2005 15:20 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should; then would we have to permanently move the whole thing to Tuesday instead of Sunday to compensate for the week after etc.?--Pharos 29 June 2005 18:51 (UTC)
 * Thats true. That would make it worse. Falphin 29 June 2005 18:52 (UTC)
 * If we were to move their deadlines for removal up two days, there's no reson why that means we have to change the start date. It's just as if they were nominated two days later. --Dmcdevit 29 June 2005 20:04 (UTC)
 * I agree, the deadline for removal should be extended for two days.--Fenice 29 June 2005 20:36 (UTC)
 * I meant the start date for the next collaboration would have to be delayed, and the next etc. Otherwise, we would have four collaborations running concurrently...--Pharos 29 June 2005 20:53 (UTC)
 * No, I would not extend time for the elected collaborations. But it looks like Ancient Egypt will have to be dropped only because of the downtime, and it has over twenty support-votes.--Fenice 29 June 2005 21:13 (UTC)
 * After looking at the article though, it really is better for AID if anything. The article has done quite well. Falphin 29 June 2005 21:42 (UTC)
 * Well, I've been very conservative, and, seeing noone else was pruning, gave some of those on the cusp a 2-day "extension". Now I see Talrias has pruned a few whose time had come, but not under the proposed "grace period".  I can't help but aggre, and I think any "extension" now is just an awkward and unworkable idea; can't we just agree that sometimes things just happen, and it's best to leave well enough alone?--Pharos 2 July 2005 03:50 (UTC)

Confusement over "needs X votes by Y"
I'm confused about when the number of votes and date the number of votes need to be achieved by should be changed. At the moment it seems that it is updated as soon as the no. of votes reaches the threshold level. This seems wrong to me as then it is "rushed" through the CotW process, meaning it is less likely to be chosen if it is a popular choice to begin with. Surely the number of votes required should be added by 5 every week instead? Talrias (t | e | c) 2 July 2005 03:29 (UTC)

 * I would agree; I haven't really been paying attention to the pruning/updating process, and figured that's how it works. --Dmcdevit 2 July 2005 04:11 (UTC)

 * What do you mean, exactly? How is it "rushed"?  I don't understand your meaning; everything is pruned in the same time frame either way.--Pharos 2 July 2005 04:41 (UTC)

 * All I think is that all noms should have the full seven days before being extended (or pruned). Even if it gets the five votes before then. Otherwise, some have an advantage over others. Let's make a hypothetical: Article A gets 15 votes in the first 14 days, then doesn't get to 20 by the 21st day and is removed. Article B gets 15 votes in the first 21 days, just in time, then doesn't get to 20 by day 28 and is removed. In this case, two articles nominated on the same day get different amounts of time, A gets 21 days, B gets 28 days. But, we don't know if A could have gotten to the next level by day 28. So it should gat the same chance as B. So deadlines should be extended only based on the time and not the vote count. Thoughts? --Dmcdevit 2 July 2005 05:14 (UTC)

 * Your example is flawed, Dmcdevit. Article A does not need 20 votes by the 21st day, it only needs 15. Even if it does not get a single vote after it achieved 15 votes by day 14, it will stay on until the 28th day.--Fenice 2 July 2005 05:45 (UTC)

 * I really should do one thing at a time, and think about what I just wrote before clicking that save button. When the we add the next seven day extension, it is added on top of the current deadline. Don't know what I was thinking. So never mind. But I think that Talrias didn't really think it out either (and it makes me feel a little better to point out, um... confusion). Don't mind me. :) --Dmcdevit 2 July 2005 06:46 (UTC)

 * I don't understand what Talrias is saying at all. I can't comment on that. Can you explain, Talrias?--Fenice 2 July 2005 07:40 (UTC)

 * Sorry, I guess I didn't explain it too well. At the moment, as soon as an article gets, for example, 5 nomination votes, it gets edited and changed to 10 nomination votes needed, and the time it must get them by is a week later than the current date.

 * This means that there is a discrepancy between articles on how long they have to achieve a certain number of votes. An article which is very popular will achieve a large number of votes very quickly, so will have less total time as a nominee as it will eventually "peak out" and be removed, while a less popular article will gain votes more slowly, so will stay as a nominee for longer. This penalises very popular articles.

 * Say article A got 5 votes in 4 days. It now needs 10 votes in a total of 11 days since it was nominated, and reaches that in another 3 (a total of 7 days). It now needs 15 votes in a total 12 days. Say it reaches that in another 4 days, now it must have 20 votes over a total of 18 days. This falls in the middle of the week, so even though it might be the most popular article on CotW it would not get chosen as the collaboration, as it fails to meet the number of votes so is removed.

 * On the other hand, article B got 5 votes in 7 days, so needs 10 votes in a total of 14 days. It just makes that, so needs 15 votes over 21 days (which it just makes).

 * When the time comes to choose the CotW for the 3rd week, article A, while having about 5 more votes than article B, has already been removed, so article B is chosen as CotW even though it is less popular and over time has received less votes per day.

 * This system obviously needs changing, the count should only be updated on a Sunday, after the 2 CotW's have been chosen. This means that all articles get a fair amount of time in nomination, proportional to their popularity, not some weird normal distribution curve where both unpopular and very popular are penalised. I hope this explains it! Talrias (t | e | c) 2 July 2005 11:46 (UTC)

 * First, I think you misinterpret the rules. It says:

 * The nomination will be moved to /Removed if it has not received 5 votes after 7 days on the list, 10 votes after 14 days, 15 votes after 21 days, and so on. Essentially, an article needs to get 5 nominations a week until the Sunday on which it has the most votes..

 * (These instructions are from the old page Collaboration_of_the_week and seem to have gotten lost when moving the page to two collaborations.) In your example, article A is not updated correctly: it should be updated to needs 10 votes by day 14, not 11. For all I can tell, Falphin usually handles it that way. The needs x votes line is changed early because if it weren't, people who didn't read the instructions would think: it does not need any votes, so I won't add my name.

 * But secondly, I think you are right, the voting system discriminates some popular articles. Some articles, like Babylonia fall out of the system with as much as 19 votes. Then others win with fewer votes, because they have not been on for so long. The thing is, that about 20 or so votes is a limit that hardly any article will exceed. So after four weeks the risk of dropping out rises for popular articles, compared to those articles that have been on the list for a shorter period of time. The effect is propably strongest when many popular articles are on the list and one wins by a close margin. --Fenice 2 July 2005 12:39 (UTC)

 * I am not the one misinterpreting the rules, I in fact explained them correctly above! Some people when updating the date are not doing it correctly, as the time it should be removed is falling in the middle of the week, which means, even if it is the most popular article at the time, it will be removed. Pharos changed it to "date in 7 days", as it was on the original CotW, before I changed it to "date next Sunday" when I put together the nomination procedure for the 2 CotWs.

 * I suggest, therefore, that it is changed back to "date next Sunday". The only problem with this is articles are progressively less likely to be nominated as it gets closer to Sunday; but this resolves the problem of this odd removal system we have at the moment. Perhaps a better solution would be to have the article's first target date by the Sunday next week (i.e. not the following Sunday, but the Sunday after that), so that each article will be on CotW as a nominee for at least a week. Talrias (t | e | c) 2 July 2005 13:29 (UTC)

Well, I really don't know...There is a whole lot of confusal with me now.--Fenice 2 July 2005 13:42 (UTC) I don't think the system should be changed, anyway.--Fenice 2 July 2005 13:51 (UTC)

The problem is that there are better days to nominate an article, which could result in a less popular article being picked. Let's says we have two articles A and B. Article A has 19 votes and needs 20 by Saturday. Article B has 15 votes and needs 20 by Monday. On Saturday article A would be dropped, because it didn't get the 20 votes, which makes the winner article B with 15 votes. I think that the system should close article A for further voting on Saturday, but keep it until Sunday. If the article is the most popular it would be picked or else it would be dropped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maitch (talk • contribs) 17:38, 2 July 2005

 * Interesting idea, it however sounds a bit complicated and rather a lot of extra work for people who manage the CotW. You are exactly right in highlighting the problem. It seems to be a bit of a dilemma! Talrias (t | e | c) 2 July 2005 16:53 (UTC)

 * Well, you can use it if you want to. Another option could be to collect nominations during the week and publish them on Sunday. As for the current confusion I think a lot of the problems come from the line:
 * Nominated 13 June 2005; Needs 15 votes by 4 July 2005
 * By saying it needs 15 votes it seems like if you get 15 votes then you will have the article of the week. Then people get confused when it's suddenly 20 votes. My suggestion for a less confusing line:
 * Nominated 13 June 2005; Deadline 4 July 2005; Extension of deadline at 20 votes
 * I must remember to sign my post this time. --Maitch 2 July 2005 19:39 (UTC)

Large content holes
Who feels this project should be steered into the direction of addressing massive content gaps? Three groups of articles are potential candidates.

 * 1) Ancient Civilizations Babylon
 * 2) Large regions Latin America
 * 3) Entire academic departments Urban studies

Those are some examples of articles falling under those categories that are in poor shape. An encyclopedia is first measured by how well it covers those most basic and general overviews of info.
 * That was from Lotsofissues.
 * Maurreen 2 July 2005 21:49 (UTC)

The first two are not stubs. You might try WP:AID. Maurreen 2 July 2005 21:53 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd agree. I would also add country capitals (even some European ones). And major overview subarticles, like "History of X," "Culture of X," and "Military history of X" (the three most important, in that order, in my view). Most countries don't even have the last two. And major historical and geological time periods that would be looked up are also neglected. Probably others, too. But, um, isn't that what we're doing here? --Dmcdevit 3 July 2005 02:32 (UTC)
 * Sometimes we actually try to have fun with topics instead of force push ourselves into creating dry overviews from the encyclopedic core. lots of issues | leave me a message 3 July 2005 05:21 (UTC)
 * "Fun." I've heard that word before... That's that thing people are always talking about when they're asking me why I hang out at an encyclopedia. I've been meaning to try it some time... --Dmcdevit 3 July 2005 05:43 (UTC)

 * Fun is actually just a redirect to recreation, which is kind of stubby. Let's list fun as a candidate for cotw.--Fenice 3 July 2005 06:21 (UTC)
 * I'll have to do some research. Maybe even field work... --Dmcdevit 3 July 2005 20:06 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. I thought that was what the project was already doing. Falphin 5 July 2005 03:00 (UTC)

-->Two of the articles mentioned by lotsofissues are currently up as candidates on WP:IDRIVE and can still be voted for: South America and Babylonia--Fenice 5 July 2005 08:52 (UTC)
 * I see. However South America could still probably be put on this page and Babylonia is best for ID. IMHO, I don't think a new project or one big project(combination of TWID/COTWs) would be best because it divides interest too much. Falphin 9 July 2005 15:32 (UTC)

Goodbye to single collaboration page
I think this dual collaboration idea is going well, and we can remove the old page and the notices of this being a trail period (pending any objections)? Phoenix2 Canada Day Weekend! 3 July 2005 19:04 (UTC)
 * The old one should probably be put under historical so that it would be easy to go back to when we need to. I agree that they are going pretty good. Falphin 4 July 2005 14:38 (UTC)
 * Let's not put it away yet. Although the last few weeks have produced very good collaborations, the current support for the page seems to be flagging a bit. Users simply aren't nominating as many articles, compounding the diminution resulting from the removal of one more successful nomination each week. If the results are still as good in time, then let's keep it at two articles per week. If not, we should go back to one. NatusRoma 00:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe the issue is that the editors are on vacation or affected by the hurricane(MikeH). Going back so soon isn't a good idea either because by August from I've been told the collaboration will pick up again. Falphin 00:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I think that there should be only one collaboration, when there are two they are simply not getting enough attention. For instance, head doesnt have much information even though it was the last COTW.--Zxcvbnm 15:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

COTW candidate notice
May I ask why does the candidate notice has to be put on the talk page instead of the article page??? Deryck C. 2005-07-05 08:41:44 (UTC)
 * Well, the normal distinction is that that kind of notice is for editors, and not readers. --Dmcdevit July 5, 2005 09:16 (UTC)
 * Aren't editors and readers mutually indistinguishable on an ideal Wikipedia? I think we should change it so it goes on the article page. Juppiter 7 July 2005 18:17 (UTC)
 * I know a lot of people who are not editors, who read only the main page, and not the talk page. therefore, i think it should stay where it is. --ZeWrestler 7 July 2005 18:22 (UTC)
 * I don't get it. Don't we WANT them to see the notice so they'll edit and make the articles more complete?  Juppiter 7 July 2005 18:44 (UTC)
 * I could see it either way, it would bring more attention to here. Would the other Collabs also be given the same right to have their nominations on the main page of the article? Falphin 7 July 2005 19:01 (UTC)
 * So can we move the COTW notice to the article page? Let's give it a try. Deryck C. 8 July 2005 03:34 (UTC)
 * This issue has been much discussed and it is fairly firm policy that messages meant only for editors belong on the talk pages. (See in particular Wikipedia talk:Template messages). Editors are a fairly small subset of the people who read our pages and we don't want to force non-editors to read through metadata when they are looking for encyclopedia articles. There are also literally hundreds of metadata templates, dozens of cleanup, expansion, and dispute templates, many Wikiprojects have their own, as does Peer Review, and Featured Articles. There is no reason COTW deserves special treatment. - SimonP July 9, 2005 13:23 (UTC)
 * The discussion you are linking to is inconclusive and ends in March and in praxi people put all similar templates (cleanup, expand etc.) on the main page. It is really strange that the COTWs didn't do that up to now. I think it is important that the reader knows we have realized that the article is not up to standard and that we are working on improving it. --Fenice 9 July 2005 17:36 (UTC)
 * Expand has been moved to the talk page those who place it in articles do so in error, certain cleanup messages are also useful for readers and thus belong on the actual page, but the others have been moved. Tempaltes is quite clear that "Templates that provide information only of service to editors belong on an article's talk page." I have moved the COTW template back to the talk page. - SimonP 00:09, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus there however, so I see no reason to that. A new discussion could be opened but I have to agree with Fenice's point that the reader needs and should know about why the article is good or bad. Thats why the NPOV tag is on the articles page. I believe it is useful ot the reader. Falphin 00:11, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * If a COTW article has problems it should be labeled with a stub, cleanup, or NPOV warning, that is what these templates are for. COTW is simply that, articles that are for a collaboration and this gives no useful information to the reader. Moreover this is the wrong place to have this discussion, as most people here are active with COTW and feel that their project should be the one to get an exception to the template rules. If you want to change the global template rules please raise the issue on the Village pump. - SimonP 00:24, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your quick response however I disagree. A COTW tells the reader that the article is in need of improvement which does not fit under any of the other templates as it is more general. It also tells the reader than a effort is going on to improve it. I suggest having no templates on the page or having all the templates that will be beneficial to the reader. I am not changing any rules set forth that were agreed upon by consensus. I suggest a vote here, or at the village pump. Falphin 00:30, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Sure, bring this issue up at the Village pump if you like. - SimonP 00:56, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

I started the topic here Village pump (policy). Falphin 01:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

SimonP has been unilaterally moving the Expansion template from article pages to talk pages despite there being no consensus. 12:45, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

 * While I'm sympathetic to Falphin, Ril, et al, (and I am somewhat torn by the fact that this is a temporary notice, as stub notices are intended to be), in the end I have to agree with SimonP on this one -- the candidate notice should go onto the Talk Page. The fact that the article is going through a voting process somewhere behind the scenes, one which may not lead to quick improvement (if it doesn't become one of the CsOTW), doesn't tell the reader anything.  I think it's of fairly small likelihood to draw someone who's not already an editor into the COTW process (if you have evidence otherwise, please say so), and there's not enough benefit to outweigh the drawbacks of Yet Another Template Box in the article space.   If it's that egregious an article, put one of the other accepted stub/improvement templates on it, otherwise, just leave the candidate notice on the talk page and let the process do its work.  (Better yet, make an edit to improve the article, large or small -- just bringing it up on Recent Changes with an inviting edit summary may be enough to get more improvements.)  — Catherine\talk 18:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * There is currently a vote going on if anyone is interested Falphin 18:11, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * My opinion for supporting putting the COTWC notice onto the article page is that I myself never views the talk page before editing because seeing the talk page wastes my time. Without the existence of a notice, such as NPOV or SectFact on the article page, I'll never view the talk. (and I'm sure that many of my friends do the same). Therefore, to ensure that the vast majority of the editors of the page know that this is a COTWC, the notice should be put onto the article page. Deryck C. 09:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

topics on other COTWs
This doesn't apply to the Main COTW but to the subCOTWs I think it would be nice to make it a rule to have related topics on other COTWs  in a section like it is done on the Cinema, Canada or Biography collabs. Thoughts. Falphin 8 July 2005 21:39 (UTC)
 * I've been doing this for a while already, I think it is a great idea. Hopefully it also increases traffic on smaller collaborations.--Fenice 9 July 2005 17:29 (UTC)

Stray Templates
I found these(nearly identical) templates. Template:Cotw-todo Template:Non-featured CotW article. I wanted ot let evryone know because I believe they would be useful templates. I was going to suggest creating a template that described it as a former COTW. Also, what about the COTWvoter template, should we update it. Falphin 9 July 2005 15:43 (UTC)

 * About the updating, you mean the two COTW? Maurreen 19:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Sí. Falphin 19:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me. Maurreen 21:03, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

What the &$@*)!
Why did the nomination process suddenly gain steps? What happened to just adding it to the page? -Litefantastic 22:58, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Its been like this for two weeks I think. I don't mind the new template but there was a big discussion about it above. Falphin 23:00, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

 * There's always been steps in nominating articles for collaborations, maybe they weren't as clear as they are now. This way is beneficial for a number of reasons - a template makes it easier for submissions to be added. While I'm familiar with it now, I used to find the wiki syntax quite confusing, but templates quite straightforward. Anything which makes it easier for people to nominate articles is likely to be a good thing. Another reason is that now only when new nominations are made this page gets edited, so it gets 'bumped' in my watchlist less often. I like to see when a new article is nominated, so I can decide whether to support or not - if all the nominations are done on this page, I would see every new support vote or comment to any nomination, which isn't what I'm interested in. This way is much simpler and I personally find it far easier to use than the old system, which I found awkward. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

 * No, the template made it harder. -Litefantastic 15:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

 * You've said it makes it harder, but you haven't said how. What is harder about it? I think it's easier as you just change a couple of words or phrases, and the template automatically formats it for you. You don't have to bother with all the colons and asterisks and getting the formatting right. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree with Litefantastic, it makes it harder. You have to keep at least two windows open to do the copy and paste. This may well be the reason why there are fewer nomiations, but I am quite sure it will catch on.--Fenice 16:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The old CotW system didn't even give you a guideline on how to make the nomination fit in with others - those unfamiliar with the syntax would have spent a great deal of time previewing and looking at the other nominations to ensure it's formatted in a similar manner. You and I might know how to indent, bold, use headings, sure, but others don't and making the process simpler is a noble goal, and it will help more people nominate articles. We should definitely keep this system. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

 * THis is no more complex than the processes at WP:COTW or WP:VFD, to name but a few of those who use sub-pages. The main interest is the possibility of rapidly linking to a specific nomination, in adition to reducing the need for reloading the entire page. It also allows one to watch a specific nomination if he so wishes. Circeus 16:04, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Redirected Collaboration of the week here
I've redirected Collaboration of the week here. The talk pages contain some useful stuff, they are at Wikipedia talk:Collaboration of the week. Talrias (t | e | c) 10:32, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

New entries at top or bottom?
Do you think new entries should be added at the top, or at the bottom? The current system is to add them at the bottom, but perhaps it might be a better idea to reverse the list and add new ones to the top. People are more likely to read entries near the top of the page than the bottom of the page. Thoughts? Talrias (t | e | c) 14:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

 * But the top entries are usually due to be removed, either as winner or loser. Therefore I support bottom. De ryc  k C.  03:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

African COTW
Please contribute. Revolución 03:29, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Problem with display on Community Portal
The COTW preview area on the the Community Portal is showing last week's articles. I don't know how to fix them or I would. Or is this the design? --Mddake 08:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Has been fixed. Phoenix2 07:09, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * And for future reference, any can fix this if they see it has not been updated: just take the lead (or a small portion) from each article, put a between, wfy the title.  If one artice is non-existant, put a larger bit from the other.  If both are non-existant, put a portion of the lead from the larger article of the previous week.  The whole COTW section should not leave a big white space in the adjacent section, so adjust accordingly. Phoenix2 03:14, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Going back to one COTW per week

 * The two per week system doesn't seem to be working very well. Over the last month none of eight COTWs (Winter, Horn of Africa, Port-au-Prince, History of South America, Head, Physical science, Learning, Lhasa) have come close creating a featured article, and several are almost unchanged from their pre-COTW state. The main cause of this is that the number of edits to each article has collapsed. Collaboration_of_the_week/History shows that it used to be standard for the COTW to get over a hundred edits during the week, now the numbers are down to 20 or 30. - SimonP 16:07, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * It is also summer, and many users are on vacation. Would that be playing a part.  I personally haven't contributed as much, because what i know about the topics i have voted for was already put into the articles by the time i got around to it. -- ZeWrestler   Talk 16:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Last summer COTW saw no drop off. In fact, some of the most successful collaborations were held during that period, such as Iranian Revolution, Medieval warfare, and Renaissance. Also, from what I have seen, the sub-COTWs have not seen a similar reduction. For instance the bio-COTW raised Henry Fonda to FA status, while the Indian one has done great work with Economy of India and Indian independence movement. - SimonP 16:27, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Some collaborations may have remainded normal, but others have gone under completly. At least 3 last month have been discontinued. -- ZeWrestler   Talk 14:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The only successful ones were the leftovers from the one per week period. We haven't had a single successful COTW since they have been cleared out. Moreover the one's that have failed have failed badly. In the entire history of COTW we never had one as unsuccessful as History of South America, even when we were just getting started. - SimonP 16:08, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * It has to be considered. Look at Horn of Africa, and today is Friday.  We can't have a general  collaboration recieving so little support. Phoenix2 16:43, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * I suppose that I should contribute more before I participate in criticism, but I think that returning to a single COTW is a wise idea given the low numbers of edits. NatusRoma 01:46, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Are there any objections to going back to one per week? Do we need a second poll to counter act the last one? - SimonP 17:45, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think that would be a bad idea, as to not suprise anyone. Phoenix2 18:19, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, a poll would be a good idea. -- ZeWrestler  Talk 14:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Here's my thoughts on this:
 * The Seventies and history of greece showed good growth after the switch. ZeWrestler  Talk 15:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the voting for these pages, which is what matters, occured before the switch. - SimonP 15:58, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the main reason for the lack of people contributing to the main COTW(S) is not that there are two, but that the number of COTWs has dramatically increased with a number of revival of old themed COTWs, and the addition of new ones. In the last few months the number of different collaborations has increased. Seeing as specific topical COTWs have been set up, people have moved to ones they are interested in, and may not be paying as much interest to this general COTW. As SimonP notes above, the other COTWs have not suffered a drop in activity. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing.
 * I don't think a poll is the right step here. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and polls are naturally self-selecting. People who do not see a problem here aren't as likely to view this page, so the poll outcome might not be reflective. I think discussion is more important at the moment. I have removed the poll for the meantime.
 * I also don't think changing it back to just one COTW will have the desired effect. As the COTWs chosen are different topics, I do not believe that the contributions of the vast majority of people is being split into two (between the articles).

Here's some ideas for this page in the future:
 * With the continued interest in local and topic specific COTWs, these are getting more popular. If this continues, if this COTW carries on declining, it might be an idea to make this an "overview" page of the current collaborations, providing a summary of each one and listing the article the collaboration is working on.
 * Alternatively, the COTWs need to be publicised more. I have created a mockup of how I would add them to the Main Page (see User:Talrias/Main Page); but this needs work as it is rather imbalanced on the page.

Comments welcome! Talrias (t | e | c) 15:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

 * At this point the main COTW is essentially dead. It is Tuesday and last week's COTWs have yet to be replaced. Despite this extra time the two current ones have seen basically no improvement. We could just shutter it, and make this a guide to the sub-COTWs, but personally I feel that would be a shame. Just two months ago it was one of the most valuable tools for creating articles, and I'm certain it can be again. More publicity would be good, such as a listing on the main page, but this has been discussed in the past and rejected.

 * I think it is also important to understand that the determining factor is not that having two per week divides the effort, but rather that having two per week means very little time and very few votes on the COTW page. With only one per week the queue was lengthy and most pages would wait around a month before becoming the COTW. More time on the page meant far more people would be aware of an upcoming collaboration, and when it did become COTW dozens would participate. Having two almost completely removes this wait time, for instance the utter failure that was the History of South America COTW was only listed for six days. Going back to one COTW would thus, in my opinion, deliver the increase in publicity for each article that we need. This queuing effect also means that those pages that were listed during the one per week period, but had their actual collaborations during the two per week period were successful. The entirety of the voting for the successful The Seventies COTW and almost all of the voting for history of Greece and History of Scandinavia COTWs were in the earlier period. It is only once the backlog was cleared out, around July 10, that COTW really collapsed. - SimonP 15:45, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm surprised that no one has updated it, then. Is there any reason for the delay in updating it? A possible solution to your point that the nominations aren't there for long, perhaps require less votes a week before it is removed (e.g. lower it to 3 per week from 5 a week)? Talrias (t | e | c) 16:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure who has been updatting it recently, but the failure to do so is understandable, since being COTW has virtually no effect these days. I'm not sure if changing the removal time would have the desired effect. History of South America would still only have spent six days on the page before being elevated. For the most part removal date only affects those pages that are not going to be COTW's anyway. SimonP 17:25, 16 August 2005

 * I think the number of votes for each nomination is not due to the number of collaborations chosen, but instead due to declining interest in the general cotw, in favour of more specific ones. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * That might be true, but I personally feel that the decline is too closely timed with the move to two per week to be coincidental. It could also be true that a combination of the two factors is a cause. Either way trying to go back to one per week can't hurt. SimonP 17:38, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * After reading all of the new arguments, I am going to have to change my opinion in favor of going back to one COTW. Last thing i want to see if this go under.  -- ZeWrestler   Talk 16:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, I brought the table up to date. lets please keep this updated and not let it slack off for a while. It took me a while to fill everything in. -- ZeWrestler  Talk 19:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

It has now been almost two weeks since the last update, and COTW continues to struggle. I'm thinking of just selecting one COTW on the 21st. Are there any strong objections to my doing this? - SimonP 21:21, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Featured Article

 * Its been a while since a collaboration from here has become a featured article. I was thinking how about we have an unoffical poll, and vote an article that we have worked on in the past to undergo a peer review. Its just a thought i figured i'd through out your direction.  What do you guys think? -- ZeWrestler   Talk 15:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, but unfortunately the COTW is not doing very well: last weeks articles Winter and Horn of Africa got little edits. We will soon have to consider returning to one collab. a week, as the arguments given to keep that format now seem to be prevailing. Phoenix2 01:21, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Overview COTW page
Talrias mentioned the possibility of changing this page to an overview COTW, while I wouldn't go that far it might be nice to have an overview page explaining the basic COTW process, the essential, goals, info on all COTWs including inactive ones(Irish etc), among other things. Thoughts? --Falphin 21:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I think that's a good idea. Perhaps it could be created at Collaborations instead of replacing this page.   —thames 22:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I also agree. With the success of the smaller COTWs an overview would be very useful. - SimonP 00:09, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

 * I've started the page. Seeing as this is about collaborations how about we collaborate on making it! :) Talrias (t | e | c) 02:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Now that the article has been started, we should make it a collaboration of the week ;) -- ZeWrestler  Talk 03:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Absolutely :D Phoenix2 02:29, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

What's going on?
Why are both COTWs the same (Militarisation of space), and why isn't one of the other successful canditates (eg. Krakow Ghetto) on either of the templates or  ? Why does one redirect to the other? Are we returning to one COTW? If so, why hasn't the template on the Community Portal been changed, and why wasn't there a discussion (there were suggestions)? Cheers, Mark Lewis 19:37, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

 * was the person who promoted the collaboration of the week, but did not appear to update anything other than the main collaboration page. I updated the template and redirected cotw2 to cotw1, as I thought it made sense. SimonP made the decision to have just one collaboration this week following his comment at . Talrias (t | e | c) 20:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Contraction and Convergence

copied and pasted british government statement
This article has been copied and pasted from here. Is it public domain and does it deserve an article?
 * probably not public domain, and definitely deserves an article. Rewriting to fit wikipedia style plus expansion can deal with copyright issues, since much of it is noting facts and listing sources. Rd232 06:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, but I've had to delete the article as it was a clear copyright infringement. I have left a note on a contributor's talk page (User_talk:Dejvid) which is explanatory. I'm leaving this talk page intact to facilitate efforts aimed at an acceptable rewrite. Regards — Encephalon 20:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Ruledandmargin 03:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC) Ruledandmargin: I'm currently updating this based on the source cited in the references section - will footnote as soon as possible.

14:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)14:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)14:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)14:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)14:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)14:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)14:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Aubrey.meyer@btinternet.com (talk)

I don't exactly understand the substance of the issue raised here. The reference tagged in the C&C article here that (if I understand this correctly was the source of the objection raised) was an article written by GCI and owned by GCI but reproduced with permission from GCI by the Environmental Audit Committee of the UK House of Commons in a public document which is freely available on the committee's website. The document in question is not "A UK Government Document" nor is it one over which they have any copyright.

Perhaps I have misunderstood the objection.

title: Talk:Contraction and Convergence


text:
Wikipedia talk:Collaboration of the week/Archive 6

Proposals
The first proposal would be to limit the number of votes each voter can cast to 3 as I have realized that people (including me) often vote not for what they will write about but what they find important. This would force us to be more selective. I also suggest that people can only vote for the articles that were nominated after they registered - in order to fight sockpuppets. Any comments? Objections? --Eleassar777 20:28, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If no-one objects, then I'll change policy soon, perhaps already tomorrow. --Eleassar777 07:54, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't like the vote limit rule. I don't really come to the COTW much anymore, so I suppose the value of my opinion on this matter has depreciated some, but: Why bother? A vote is inherently placed in order to give credence to something the voter deems notable. Limiting the number of votes seems kinda...conterproductive.
 * I'm okay with the second idea, though. -Litefantastic 12:33, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Each time a candidate article gets chosen for COTW, it should be considered notable according to the greater number of votes it gets in comparison to other candidates. When users vote for a majority of articles at the same time, it is harder to achieve this difference and because of that, voting is also not so reliable. On the other side, but by the same reasoning, if someone votes only for a smaller number of candidates, the votes he/she casts have greater influence.

Therefore the changes I propose are not only good for the community but also for individual voters. --Eleassar777 13:30, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

 * After two weeks without any persistent objections, I have changed the voting rules yesterday. --Eleassar777 07:21, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Voting
I think we should remove both these restrictions. Currently I see no attempt to sock puppet votes (as there is little incentive to), and the restriction on votes is silly. Burgundavia 02:44, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe it would be good if someone was so dedicated to an article that they would make a sockpuppet to get it through. Then maybe someone would contribute to it! :) --Dmcdevit 02:53, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

May I ask where the two of you were before the restrictions were implemented?? It's silly to change them every day. You have to present real arguments.

In essence, I just do not want to see e.g. "Burundi" (everyone voted - including new users, but almost nobody contributed) the winner of the COTW instead of "History of technology" (I'm sure that many people would contribute if it had been chosen, as they did for the History of science, but it was not). The voting system appears to be flawed. --Eleassar777 12:37, 8 May 2005 (UTC) P.S.: what's the point of votes Fenice gave today? Will he (she) contribute to all of the articles he voted for? What's the point of voting if you do not cntribute? --Eleassar777

 * Hi, I did not see the rule. Anyway, now that I think of it there's a lot to be said against it. I don't think people should vote only for the articles they can or plan or want to contribute to. The winner of the vote should be the article that needs improvement most because it is important and because it is likely to be looked up a lot.
 * Anyway, if you install such a rule, you would have to clarify the time frame. If this rule stays at it is it means everyone can vote three times in their lives - the project would be dead soon.--Fenice 13:12, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, if this rule wasn't discussed anywhere else but only on this page I cannot help but notice that it has only one proponent (Eleassar777) and three people against it (litefantastic, Burgundavia and Fenice). Shouldn't rule-changes on such an important project be polled on a larger scale?--Fenice 13:25, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I think I know what you mean.

1)The rule is in fact badly formulated. However, I'm sure you know what I wanted to express: to limit the number of votes each user has in given moment on the project page to three. I'm changing it right now.

2) I believe that voting for only three nominated articles on the list means that your votes are effective. If you vote for each article, it is as voting for none of them.

Another point is that one of the voting rules says: "A vote will be taken to include a pledge that the voter will contribute to the article if it is selected." Therefore, some effort should be made to realize this.

Usually people are not knowledgeable in everything. This means that they can contribute only to a limited number of candidates and should be allowed to give only a limited number of votes.

Another solution would be to remove the sentence mentioned above from the list of the rules of voting. This probably wouldn't be a good idea as if people don't contribute only a week passes by without any work done.

I am not the only one who thinks that people should contribute. From the last archive, it is evident that also User:Mikkalai and User:Bremen agree with that.

3) User:Dmcdevit says: "Maybe it would be good if someone was so dedicated to an article that they would make a sockpuppet to get it through.". My comment would be that perhaps the criterium of 5 votes per week for the article is too high.

4) I agree that rules should be discussed elsewhere. Where do you think it would be the most appropriate place to do so? I'm only sorry that this discussion didn't happen already before. --Eleassar777 15:21, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

 * User Mikkalai says on the last archive page that voters should state whether they want to contribute or just think that the topic is interesting. I cannot find explicit support for this policy by Bremen.
 * All in all I believe you are moving in the wrong direction. Limiting the votes will just make people more disinterested in the Cotw. And the pledge to contribute - nobody reads that or sticks to it anyway.
 * It is very unlikely that the people who come here and vote are the ones who are likely to make the best contributions.
 * (On the other hand, I think that there are people who are in fact able to write a good article on almost everything, because they know how to research and are knowledgeable).
 * If you think that there are not enough edits, and that seemed to be the original problem of the discussion, other mesures would be more efficient: you have a marketing problem: the people who could and would want to make the best contributions probably don't even know about cotw.
 * Other mesures could be:
 * leave notes on user-pages of people who are likely to contribute and invite them to make edits. These people could be:

 * the supporters
 * people who have worked on the article before
 * people who have worked on similar articles
 * There are probably lists of wikipedians according to their area of interest/knowledge
 * leave notes on related project pages
 * etc.--Fenice 16:12, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

This is an excellent advice. You can revert the change of the rule about the number of votes if you wish. However, as some people do read the rules, the sentence about the pledge to contribute should also be removed if it is not followed or is followed only by a small minority. The question of who should have the privilege to vote, however, still has to be resolved. --Eleassar777 17:31, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Aid the AID

 * Please, help the Article Improvement Drive. I don't think it has long to live with such meager support, and as the members of the COTW you guys should all know that we're the next step after you. -Litefantastic 17:10, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. It doesn't get nearly half as much attention as COTW. --King of ♥  ♦  ♣ ♠ 04:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

At 1800
The Ancient Rome won but now airport is ahead, which should be selected as the next COTW winner? Falphin 02:23, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * It was my flip from one to the other that created this situation. Both articles are good candidates, but since we just finished a Roman colaboration I felt it would be better to go with airport this week. - SimonP 02:34, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * I got myself into something I thought I knew how to do but apparently didn't, you can view the voters of the Airport COTW on my talk page. Sorry Falphin 03:04, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Voting Ties
I created a template that could be placed on the COTW page in the event of voting ties, if anyone is interested in using it. It would better notify people that there has been a tie, and they could vote for one of the potential candidates.

ExtendCOTW 'Voting for this week's Collaboration of the week'' has been extended 24 hours until Monday 30 May, 2005

It could be at the top of the page, or before the first candidate. Phoenix2 04:15, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Obviously it would have to be 'd in. Talrias (t | e | c) 09:06, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Proposal
Could we have two COTW's a week. All the current topics are good choices but many won't make it because of how many else are listed. So for the summer could we have two COTWs every week, I believe enough people are participating to do this. Falphin 16:10, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree - article improvement drive has two articles a week, for example. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:26, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Another reason would be how well Roaring Twenties has done that it is getting  fewer significant edits everyday  because almost all the topics are covered.  I imagine this will continue over the summer as long as their good topics.Falphin 18:00, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I proposed this a while back. See discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:Collaboration_of_the_week/Archive_5   —thames 21:20, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * We should have a vote on this proposal since everyone agreed with your proposal. Falphin 22:28, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vote for Second COTW per week
The COTW has too many topics that aren't going to make it. So I'm putting forth a vote on adding a second COTW per week. It was previously proposed by Thames and as far as I can tell no one disagreed. If interest dies out on the COTW page we can always return to one COTW per week.

Support: Oppose:
 * 1) Falphin 22:35, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) The Anachronism 02:03, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 3)   —thames 05:16, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) ZeWrestler 06:24, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Talrias (t | e | c) 11:54, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Phoenix2 15:22, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 7)  ℬ astique ▼ talk 23:08, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) mikka (t) 23:40, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Joolz 08:52, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Jacoplane 23:52, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) King of ♥   ♦  ♣ ♠ 04:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) violet/riga (t) 17:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Howabout1 Talk to me!  18:49, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) SimonP 02:20, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC) One week has worked well so far. While the rapid growth often occurs in the first few days, the subsequent period is often one of important polishing and refinement. I feel that if we want to do more articles per week the best option is to create more national and topical COTWs.
 * I'm currently managing the United Kingdom CotW, and there is hardly any activity there at all - there's the odd person dropping by to suggest new articles every month. While this might not be representative I don't think necessarily creating more will be a good solution. Talrias (t | e | c) 11:54, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) NatusRoma 05:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) (pending a well-developed structure for the trial period)

Comments:
 * A sensible idea. If wikipedia is to truly become the cornucopia of knowledge and wisdom that its framers intend, COTW's will only help that goal, and keeping their numbers per week at a fixed level will ensure that many ideas receive serious attention.--The Anachronism 02:03, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I am yet to decide, but more than one will perhaps give a better choice to edit.--Bhadani 04:48, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * If it turns out that it waters down our combined efforts too much, we can always go back to one a week, no harm done.  —thames 05:16, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * We could try it and see what it would be like. the collaboration drive does 2 articals per week, so we could as well.  Personally, I like this alot, because i know there will be some articals coming up, that i'm not interested in, and because of that, it'll give me more options of what i can edit.  --ZeWrestler 06:24, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I have previously opposed this idea, on the basis that it will dilute what attention the COTW gets (some change hardly at all during their week of fame). But why don't we try it for a trial period of say a month and see how it goes? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:18, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * With the current COTW format, some things that recieve relatively enough support and could have improved are forgotten because it takes articles too long to get to the top. Phoenix2 15:22, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The articles chosen don't always interest everyone, this has twice the chance at choosing an article people are interested in contributing to. -- Joolz 08:52, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It seems like I'm in the minority on this one. My opposition is probably just due to my inate resistance to change. I don't object to a trial run, but I would like to see some real data gathered over the period. - SimonP 14:44, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Then we should have a trial run. That way we have a complete consensus. Falphin 01:55, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Next week we could run a trial of two COTW's, and change the appropriate templates, as well as the community portal page. The COTWnow template could be changed to read, "this is a current collaboration of the week..., or something similar. We also need to specify on what the voting format would be. Phoenix2 02:54, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think that adding more articles is the solution. Two articles per week has not met the Article Improvement Drive with continual droves of interested editors (see above), and I don't think that it will help COTW. NatusRoma 05:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Would you oppose the trial period? Falphin 13:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I would not, provided that there is a good method of ensuring that we don't have two overlapping articles in the same week. At present, the votes seem to point to doing High Middle Ages and Ancient Egypt next week, and Navy and Ancient Greece the week after, so the interests of the voters may be enough to take care of this. However, had this trial period begun a few weeks ago, we might have wound up with both Ancient Rome and Culture of Ancient Rome at the same time, which would have seriously diluted our efforts, duplication of content notwithstanding. In the same way, working on Ancient Egypt and Ancient Greece together would present the same problem of drawing people with similar interests to two separate efforts, yet greatly reduce the benefit of easy content duplication present in my (only barely) hypothetical Ancient Rome example.
 * I have a few ideas for avoiding such a problem, but I'd like to hear yours. Perhaps it would be beneficial to create a policy that only one of the two articles chosen could come from the same category. I don't know what such a categorization scheme could be, but it would not be difficult to come up with a scheme that avoids either of the types of competitive pairs that I just mentioned. Another possible solution might be to limit voting to ensure that people will not promise their efforts to two similar articles and then be forced to focus on one or to divide their efforts between the two. Please let me know if you have any criticism or suggestions. NatusRoma 00:49, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I would oppose limiting votes. However we could make the categorization system. Example; History, Military(Navy,Airforce etc), Recent Culture(to avoid overlap with history), Geographical, and Domestic. Thats of course just one possibility. Falphin 01:04, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course this might still be too broad as it wouldn't allow Ancient Egypt and the High Middle Ages to be in the same week.Falphin 01:10, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * A Second possibility is make a policy that two related articles can't be posted within a 4 day period increasing the likelyhood of them not ending up together.Falphin 01:10, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I suppose that it would be too much hassle to either have one or two COTW's, based on what they would be for that week. There would only be one if, as stated above, the topics were similar. Phoenix2 23:09, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Two COTWs
Are we going to do two or one? The vote ended 10-2 with one user in opposition stating a trial period was fine and the other would support if two non-similar topics were picked each week. Falphin 18:34, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I guess that that decision has been made; let's start the trial period with two categorically unrelated articles on June 19. NatusRoma 00:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I've created a new page, Collaborations of the week, so this can happen. Talrias (t | e | c) 20:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

New COTWs
I was wondering if anyone would be interested in having a Biography Collaboration of the Week. Lately I have noticed that wikipedia lacks good articles on well known theologians and philosopher and I imagine elsewhere to. Thoughts? Falphin 01:46, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * we can try it. definetly couldn't hurt.  if anything comes up that i'm interested in, i'll vote for it. --ZeWrestler 02:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * That was something I was just thinking of, guess I was beaten to it! the wub (talk) 12:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * support. Not sure I'd contribute much but I'd like to see it happen.--Fenice 13:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I suggest we wait until at least 8 support votes. Falphin 16:48, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Biography COTW vote
Support two weeks per COTW:
 * 1) Falphin 16:48, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) ZeWrestler 21:02, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Support three weeks per COTW:

Comments:
 * I believe we can manage two weeks for the COTW but in case others disagree I'm adding a three week. Falphin 16:48, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * In light that so many other COTWs are being created I plan to go ahead and start this one as a two week period. I will do it tonight when I get back. Falphin 22:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

COTW on Frontpage
I wonder why COTW is not on the frontpage. (The corresponding is put on the frontpage in Wikibooks.) This way it will attract more attention and thus more expansion. I would suggest to put it under the current Featured Articles, Selected Anniversaries, In the news, DYK, to indicate that it is not a featured thing of Wikipedia, but clearly needing more attention.

 * This is something that should probably be discussed on Talk:Main Page, but I think it one reason for not having it there might be because the COTW is typically very short to begin with and there isn't much worth reading. Another reason might be that no one has suggested it! (please remember to sign your messages on talk pages) Talrias (t | e | c) 17:26, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I considered raising this point myself at one point, but after having seen the tiresomely repetitive vandalism that tends to occur to articles featured on the main page, I think having at least one link to go through eliminates most of the risk, and allows those really committed to the COTW's improvement to carefully plan a path of improvement without having to constantly revert vandalism. --Mark Lewis 18:57, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I think we wanted to keep the Main Page as a starting point for Wikipedia readers and users. The corrisponding page for editors is the Community Portal, which is disturbing for those who both read and edit Wikipedia. I think we pull in enough people into editing articles anyway, and the large audience the Main Page has probably works best for what it already does -- correcting small fact/language errors in already very well done articles. — Sverdrup 19:20, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Could we put the Article Improvement Drive on there too? -Litefantastic 23:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to multiple collaborations?
Given that the Collaborations page is pretty much the same thing as Collaboration (singular), can the latter be redirected to the former now? I don't see how it's terribly useful to keep the front page around, since the votes there have been copied to the new version. It actually seems rather confusing. -- Beland 04:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. There's no trial period any more. --Dmcdevit·t 04:40, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

 * I've done it. This page should of course be kept. :) Talrias (t | e | c) 10:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


text:
Bergstraße (route)

The Bergstraße ("Mountain Road") is an 80 km ancient trade route in the south-west of Germany. The route and the area around it is a mountainous "theme route" running north–south along the western edge of the Odenwald forest in southern Hesse and northern Baden-Württemberg. The route passes through the Bergstraße administrative district, and independent viticultural regions of Hessische Bergstraße and Badische Bergstraße. Between the cities of Heidelberg and Weinheim the Upper Rhine Railway Company (OEG) tram route runs alongside.

Route
The route goes almost straight from north to south at the spot where the Rhine lowlands meet the western edge of the Odenwald. The name comes from the road's route along the foot of the mountains, the Rhine lowlands once being too damp to build a road there.

The route mostly follows the modern B3 road. It begins in Darmstadt and, after passing through Eberstadt, splits into the "Old Bergstraße" and the "New Bergstraße", which goes somewhat further to the west. The two routes meet again at Zwingenberg.

In Weinheim-Lützelsachsen an old and a new Bergstraße once more form, the new one passing west of the old route as far as Heidelberg-Handschuhsheim, where the two meet once more. The route carrying on after the Neckar from Heidelberg to Wiesloch is still usually known as the Bergstraße, even though the type of country and climate typical of the Bergstraße is no longer as pronounced.

The Bergstraße passes through three rural districts and two urban districts: Darmstadt, Landkreis Darmstadt-Dieburg, Kreis Bergstraße, Heidelberg and the Rhein-Neckar-Kreis. The northern part belongs to Hesse and the southern part to Baden. The border between these two Länder is between Heppenheim and Laudenbach.

The Bergstraße was used as a trading route as far back as Roman times. The name bergstrasen was first recorded in 1165. A Latinised form of the name (strata montana) did not arise from the Romans but during the Renaissance. Older names are: strata publica (795), platea montium (819) and montana platea (1002).

The route has changed slightly in places across the centuries. In 1955 traces of the old paved Roman road were discovered during work on the drains in Heppenheim. They were moved to the Ferdinand Feuerbach Unit (on the corner of Karlstraße and Karl-Marx-Straße) and can still be seen there today. They cover an area of about 20 m².

Places along the route
The Bergstraße travels through the following towns (from north to south):
 * Darmstadt
 * Darmstadt
 * Darmstadt-Eberstadt
 * Seeheim-Jugenheim (Old Bergstraße)
 * Malchen
 * Seeheim
 * Jugenheim
 * Alsbach-Hähnlein (Old Bergstraße)
 * Alsbach
 * Bickenbach (New Bergstraße)
 * Zwingenberg
 * Bensheim
 * Bensheim-Auerbach
 * Bensheim
 * Heppenheim
 * Laudenbach (Rhein-Neckar)
 * Hemsbach
 * Weinheim
 * Weinheim-Sulzbach
 * Weinheim
 * Weinheim-Lützelsachsen
 * Weinheim-Hohensachsen
 * Hirschberg an der Bergstraße
 * Großsachsen
 * Leutershausen
 * Schriesheim
 * Dossenheim
 * Heidelberg
 * Heidelberg-Handschuhsheim
 * Heidelberg-Neuenheim
 * Neckar
 * Heidelberg
 * Heidelberg-Rohrbach
 * Leimen (Baden)
 * Nußloch
 * Wiesloch

Countryside
The countryside directly along the route is also named after the road. The weather in the region is typically particularly mild and sunny, with around 1500 hours of sun every year. Spring starts earlier here than anywhere else in Germany. This and the good soil conditions (a fertile loess soil) make the Bergstraße one of Germany's richest fruit-producing areas, with grapes, other fruit, almonds, sweet chestnuts and walnuts. The Bergstraße is famous for its almond trees which thrive in the area and bloom as early as March. Other Mediterranean plants such as figs and olive trees also grow there.

Because of the mild climate, Joseph II, Holy Roman Emperor (1765–1790), pausing at the Bergstraße on a trip back from Frankfurt am Main, is said to have exclaimed "This is where Germany starts to become Italy".

As part of the conurbation at the point where the Rhine, Main and Neckar rivers meet, the Bergstraße is highly developed and industrialised. But tourism is also of some importance there. Apart from the countryside, the most important sights are Heidelberg with its castle and old city; Darmstadt, the center of Jugendstil art, with its artists' colony; the chain of castles on the edge of the Oden forest (Castle Frankenstein, Alsbach Castle, Auerbach Castle, Starkenburg above Heppenheim, Wachenburg and Windeck above Weinheim, Strahlenburg above Schriesheim), as well as the picturesque old town centers in many cities and towns, especially the almost completely preserved (except for the city walls) town of Heppenheim with its splendid city hall, marketplace, "Bergstraße Cathedral", and numerous medieval half-timbered structures; and in addition the old town centers of Zwingenberg, Bensheim and Weinheim. An extraordinary sight in the immediate vicinity of the Bergstraße is the Carolingian-era entrance hall of the one-time Lorsch monastery, designated by UNESCO as a world cultural heritage site.

Population history
The Bergstraße area was settled in early times. Numerous excavations have uncovered finds dating back to the times of the Linear Pottery c. 5500 BC and Corded Ware cultures, who tilled the land and herded cattle there in around 2500 to 1500 BC. The population grew in Roman times and settlements were built in different sizes, villae rusticae. These were the dominant economic units of the mountainous country along the Bergstraße between 120 and 260 AD.

title: Bergstraße (route)


text: User talk:80.47.58.62

title: User talk:80.47.58.62


text:
Fist of Legend

Fist of Legend is a 1994 Hong Kong martial arts film directed and co-written by Gordon Chan, featuring action choreography by Yuen Woo-ping, and produced by Jet Li, who also stars in the lead role of Chen Zhen. It is a remake of the 1972 Bruce Lee film Fist of Fury.

Set in the Shanghai International Settlement in 1914, the film follows Chen as he investigates his old master Huo Yuanjia's death at the hands of the Imperial Japanese occupation forces. The film co-stars Chin Siu-ho, Yasuaki Kurata, Shinobu Nakayama, Billy Chow and Paul Chun. It was released by Golden Harvest on 22 December 1994.

Plot
In 1914, Chen Zhen is a Chinese martial artist from Shanghai, who attends Kyoto University. Thugs from the ultranationalist Black Dragon Clan burst in and attempt to force him out because he is Chinese. Mitsuko, one of Chen's classmates who is in a romantic relationship with him, along with Chen's professor and classmates, defend his presence. The thugs turn violent but Chen easily defeats them using a variety of controlled Qin Na techniques. The Japanese thugs' sensei, Fumio Funakoshi, who is also Mitsuko's uncle, arrives to take control of the situation and apologizes for his students' behavior. Funakoshi is impressed by Chen's skill and converses with him, and Chen learns that his master, Huo Yuanjia, has died after losing in a match against a Japanese karateka named Akutagawa. Chen is distraught after hearing the bad news and he leaves Kyoto for Shanghai immediately.

Chen returns to Jingwu School and learns that his master's son, Ting'en, has become the new master. The next day, Chen goes to the Japanese dojo to challenge Akutagawa, who honorably accepts. Chen defeats Akutagawa easily and concludes that Akutagawa was not capable of defeating Huo, after which he suspects foul play in his master's death. Chen has Huo's corpse exhumed for an autopsy against the wishes of Ting'en and his fellow Jingwu members. It is revealed that Huo was poisoned and weakened before his match against Akutagawa. Over the next few days, word of Chen's victory against Akutagawa spreads and Chen becomes a local celebrity in Shanghai. The Jingwu members begin to look up to Chen as their new instructor, which incurs the jealousy of Ting'en. Ting'en remains silent and seeks comfort in a brothel, where he becomes romantically involved with a prostitute.

Meanwhile, Akutagawa confronts General Fujita of the Imperial Japanese Army after suspecting that his match against Huo had been rigged, which he considers dishonorable. After a heated argument, Fujita kills Akutagawa by breaking his back in front of the Japanese ambassador, and then places the blame on Chen. Enraged by their master's death, Akutagawa's students attack the Jingwu School, culminating in a fight that is eventually stopped by the local police. Chen is arrested and placed on trial for allegedly murdering Akutagawa. Several bribed witnesses provide false and conflicting accounts of the murder, but the court refuses to accept testimony from any Chinese defense witnesses on the grounds of bias towards Chen. Mitsuko shows up and testifies that Chen is innocent because he spent the night with her, and the court accepts her false testimony because she is Japanese. Chen is exonerated, but his apparent relationship with Mitsuko ruins his reputation because the Chinese view it as an act of betrayal against his fellow Chinese. Ting'en and the senior Jingwu members demand that Chen leaves either Mitsuko or the school. Ting'en uses the opportunity to settle his personal vendetta against Chen by challenging him to a fight. Although Chen defeats Ting'en, he still chooses to leave with Mitsuko. Ting'en feels humiliated by his defeat so he gives up his position as master of Jingwu before leaving to join his lover. Jingwu's members eventually discover Ting'en's relationship with her and reprimand him. Ting'en learns his lesson and returns to Jingwu.

Chen and Mitsuko face hostility from the locals and are forced to take shelter in an abandoned hut near Huo Yuanjia's grave. At the same time, Funakoshi arrives from Japan, as requested by Fujita, to eliminate Chen. Funakoshi engages Chen in a fight, which ends in a draw and the conclusion that if Chen learns to adapt to his opponent's moves, he will be unbeatable. Funakoshi leaves after warning Chen about Fujita's ill intentions and brutal methods. Days later, Huo Ting'en visits Chen and apologizes for his earlier behavior, saying that Jingwu School accepts Chen and Mitsuko's relationship now. Huo teaches Chen the Mizong Fist that night while Mitsuko leaves secretly, leaving behind a message for Chen that she will wait for him in Japan.

The next day, Chen and Huo confront Fujita at his dojo, where Fujita exposes a traitor from Jingwu who played a role in Huo Yuanjia's death, and shoots him. Huo Ting'en then fights Fujita, who appears to be incredibly strong and resilient, and Huo suffers grave injuries. Chen engages Fujita in a long and exhausting fight, and eventually defeats him. Just as Chen and Huo are about to leave, the enraged Fujita comes after them with a katana. Huo pushes Chen out of the katana's way but is stabbed in the arm, and Chen is forced to kill Fujita. Japanese soldiers surround them and prepare to open fire. The Japanese ambassador, who is a pacifist against rising militarism in his country, arrives and orders his soldiers to stand down. He agrees with Chen's actions as he has been aware that Fujita is a madman, but also warns them that the Japanese government will use Fujita's death as an excuse to start a war with China, unless the Chinese can account for Fujita's death by executing the murderer. Chen expresses his willingness to accept the blame for Fujita's death in order to prevent war, earning the ambassador's further admiration. Instead of ordering Chen's death, the ambassador stages a fake execution and substitutes the dead Jingwu's traitor's body for Chen's. The Jingwu school is saved and expands all over China. Meanwhile, Chen secretly leaves Shanghai for Manchuria where he plans to reunite with Mitsuko.

Box office
Though Fist of Legend is widely considered one of Li's best films, during the downturn period of the Hong Kong film industry, its HK$14,785,382 box office gross was considered a disappointment. By comparison, Li's Fong Sai-yuk grossed over HK$30 million, and Fong Sai-yuk II grossed HK$23 million, but its overall box office from other countries was good.

In South Korea, the film sold 181,760 tickets in Seoul City.

Critical response
The film holds a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

Television
In the United Kingdom, the film (released as Jet Li's Fist of Legend) was watched by 1.1 million viewers on television in 2004, making it the year's seventh most-watched foreign-language film on television (below six other Hong Kong action films).

Miramax
The English-dubbed U.S. release by Miramax and Buena Vista Distribution contains four specific mistranslations that drastically alter the meaning of the film as a whole.

 * 1) Before Chen leaves Japan, Mitsuko asks him if he hates the Japanese. In the U.S. version he replies, "I don't hate". In the Hong Kong version he replies, "I don't know".
 * 2) In the U.S. version of the scene where Chen fights Fumio, Fumio asks him what the most effective way to defeat an enemy is. Chen replies that the most effective way is to focus one's energy and strike, and Fumio agrees with him. In the Hong Kong version, they begin by discussing their match. Chen says that the purpose of martial arts is to defeat an enemy. Fumio says, "No, you're wrong. The best way to defeat your enemy is to use a gun. Martial arts is about personal development". The original line was a nod to Bruce Lee, who was quoted during the production of Enter the Dragon as "Nowadays you don't go around on the street kicking people, punching people — because if you do (makes gun shape with hand), well that's it — I don't care how good you are".
 * 3) Prior to the final fight sequence in the U.S. version, Chen and Huo face Fujita who holds up a sign reading Dongya Bingfu (東亞病夫) and he tells them that the sign says, "Jingwu is closed". The Chinese characters are commonly translated to "Sick men of the East" and is used as a famous reference to Fist of Fury. The subtitles in the Hong Kong version translate the sign correctly.
 * 4) At the end in the U.S. version, Chen's driver asks him if he will go to be with Mitsuko. Chen responds, "If I no longer have a country, at least I can still be with the woman I love". His response in the Hong Kong version is, "Where is war with Japan most likely to break out?" The driver says, "Manchuria" and he says, "We'll go to Manchuria then".

With regard to footage, this version deletes the final moments of students training and contains a brand new set of opening (animated) and closing credits in English, abandoning the previous ones completely.

Taiwan
Compared to the Hong Kong version, the 106-minute Mandarin-dubbed Taiwanese version contains the following footage:

 * 1) An extension to the scene where Fujita gives a harsh lecture to several men, prior to his order to spy on certain Japanese individuals.
 * 2) An extension of the scene with Chen after bowing to his master's shrine where Liu Zhensheng then hands over a suitcase to Chen and the latter proceeds to leave. Prior to following him, Mitsuko also respectfully bows.
 * 3) An entire scene where Hill Hung is looking for Huo Ting'en at a brothel, only to find him smoking opium with a prostitute.
 * 4) An entire scene where Hill Hung brings tea to Huo Ting'en, the night prior to the final match.
 * 5) An extension of Fumio talking with the ambassador, prior to the former winning the Renju game.
 * 6) After the final fight ends, a very small extension sees the Japanese soldiers pause for a moment prior to entering the Dojo.

In the Mandarin soundtracks of the film, there is background music when Chen fights Huo, but in the Cantonese soundtrack, the music only plays after Chen performs a Capoeira-style kick later on in the fight.

Hong Kong
The Hong Kong version in return, has the following unique footage:

 * 1) A reaction shot of the cook in the kitchen (followed by a shot from Huo Yuanjia's shrine) after Uncle Nong dispatches students to search for Huo Ting'en.
 * 2) A few seconds of Chen Zhen feigning death to Fujita.
 * 3) After the credits finish, we see the crew waving to the camera.

Both Hong Kong and Taiwanese version have slightly different end credits.

Ritek
In 1997, the first DVD was released by Ritek in Taiwan, which fans later reported to be an "uncut" version. This has been a widely held misconception - whilst this version does carry some more footage (as a Taiwanese version), it is in turn missing a few moments that the Hong Kong version has.

Miramax
On 15 February 2000, Miramax issued a DVD of this film in the U.S. (later in the U.K. by Hollywood Pictures on VHS first, then DVD later on 29 March 2002). Whilst it featured better visual quality than any other release, it immediately caused an uproar with the Hong Kong Cinema fan community because it contained only a new English dub/score with alterations to the original dialogue and no original Cantonese option, a defect shared with many of their Hong Kong-acquired titles.

HKVideo
On 20 March 2002, the first official DVD of the Hong Kong version with a Cantonese soundtrack was issued by HKVideo in France, but it contained no English subtitles. One notable difference to other versions carrying a Chinese/Taiwanese version is that it doesn't contain the ending text describing the aftermath of Jingwu School, but is otherwise the same and, bar a few missing frames, uncut.

Maxam
A lesser-known DVD was issued on 25 March 2005 by Japanese distributor Maxam which contains the Hong Kong version (and its ending text) in complete form, but no English subtitles.

Dragon Dynasty
A R1 2-DVD "Ultimate Edition" was released on 9 September 2008 from The Weinstein Company's Dragon Dynasty label in America, which features many extras and the original Cantonese soundtrack with English subtitles, marking the first official DVD release to do so. This version was also released in Australia (Region 4), in single disk. However, this is still visually the previous US version with the Cantonese soundtrack edited to fit its visuals. The subtitles revert to dubtitles towards the end - relying on the previous incorrectly transcribed "Sick Men Of Asia" sign and story-changing ending from Miramax's English dub.

New Age 21/HMH
German-issued DVDs from distributor 'New Age 21' and 'HMH' were released in November 2008 in an uncut state and contain a Cantonese soundtrack with English subtitles.

Other releases
Other uncut English-subtitled releases of the Hong Kong Cantonese-language versions (now OOP) include the US Tai Seng VHS (released on 20 October 2000), the Australian Chinatown Video VHS, the U.K. Made in Hong Kong VHS (released on 1 October 1999), and the Mei Ah VCD, VHS and LD.

The Malaysian Speedy VCD also contains a similar version, but enforces cuts to some scenes for violence:

 * 1) Fujita kneeing Ryōichi Akutagawa's back.
 * 2) Huo Ting'en hitting his head on a window during the finale.
 * 3) Chen Zhen hitting his head on a window during the finale.

The Spanish Manga Films DVD titled El Mejor Luchador (released on 24 October 2001) and a slightly edited Indian Diskovery VCD titled The Hitter: Fist of the Legend contain an English-dubbed version intended for export to English-speaking territories. This version has aired occasionally on US TV with a Miramax ident instead of their own produced version.

Blu-ray
Cine Asia released a Blu-ray version on 22 March 2010 in the UK and on 20 April in USA.

Legacy
Fist of Legend inspired the Wachowskis to hire choreographer Yuen Woo-ping for the fight scenes in The Matrix (1999). The style of fighting in the two films bears some resemblance.

In 1996, an unofficial sequel titled Fists of Legends 2: Iron Bodyguards was released starring Jet Le (not Jet Li).

Later films have also been influenced by Fist of Legend. Hitman contains a scene involving the main character using a belt as a weapon as seen in Fist of Legend. The more realistic and less wire-driven fight choreography seen in Kiss of the Dragon was a result of fan criticism to Corey Yuen's choreography in Romeo Must Die and preference for the style seen in Fist of Legend.

In 2006, Jet Li played his character's teacher, Huo Yuanjia, in Fearless.

In 2010, Gordon Chan and Andrew Lau produced a continuation of this film titled Legend of the Fist: The Return of Chen Zhen with Donnie Yen as Chen Zhen in his thirties.

title: Fist of Legend


text:
Talk:EuroBasket 2005

Untitled
Could you shoot out the "Division B"? There's no divisions at Eurobasket, the Division B it's for the qualifications for the next Eurobasket. And please make another page for Euro 2005 women: it's not the same event.
 * Done. Eurobasket 2005 Women and Eurobasket Division B are now separate. But quickly, can you please explain how promotions and relegations work in Division A and B? I've been looking around and all I've found is that the top 2 Division B teams are promoted to Division A, but which teams from Division A are relegated to Division B? I assume the two worst performers.. --Hurricane Angel 08:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Why have you "reintegrated division B"? It's not the Eurobasket! There are juste one major tournament it's the Eurobasket 2005, the division B don't play for the Eurobasket!
 * I'm aware of that, they are not the same competition. However they are both Divisions of the European zone. Having a separate page is too redundant when it can be on just one, I'd like to get more opinions before anything else is done. --Hurricane Angel 00:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Eurobasket05 logo.jpg
Image:Eurobasket05 logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Fixed. El Greco(talk) 01:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:FIBA EuroBasket which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:EuroBasket 2005