Misplaced Pages

:Collaboration of the week/Depth: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Collaboration of the week Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:44, 8 July 2005 editTitoxd (talk | contribs)43,130 edits →[] (July 9)← Previous edit Latest revision as of 23:13, 13 November 2016 edit undoSteel1943 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors197,862 editsm Steel1943 moved page Misplaced Pages:Collaborations of the Week/Depth to Misplaced Pages:Collaboration of the week/Depth: Move all subpages of Collaborations of the Week to current page title 
(13 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
=== ] (July 9)=== === ] (July 16)===


: ''Nominated on 2 July 2005 21:09 (UTC); needs 5 votes by ].'' : ''Nominated on 2 July 2005 21:09 (UTC); needs 10 votes by ].''


I'm nominating this because it's linked to from over 1200 articles, and it's still a stub. I added a secton on measuring the depth of craters, but it could still use a lot of expansion. This is a basic concept in physics. -- ] 2 July 2005 21:09 (UTC) I'm nominating this because it's linked to from over 1200 articles, and it's still a stub. I added a secton on measuring the depth of craters, but it could still use a lot of expansion. This is a basic concept in physics. -- ] 2 July 2005 21:09 (UTC)
Line 8: Line 8:
# ] 2 July 2005 21:09 (UTC) # ] 2 July 2005 21:09 (UTC)
# ] 2 July 2005 21:35 (UTC) # ] 2 July 2005 21:35 (UTC)
# --] 8 July 2005 22:44 (UTC) # ] 8 July 2005 22:44 (UTC)
# ] ] 9 July 2005 00:45 (UTC)
# ] 9 July 2005 12:16 (UTC)
# ] 12:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
# ] 19:42, 2005 July 11 (UTC)
# ] 17:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
# ] 18:52, July 13, 2005 (UTC)


'''Comments''': '''Comments''':
*One of the most deserving articles! --] 2 July 2005 21:35 (UTC) *One of the most deserving articles! --] 2 July 2005 21:35 (UTC)
*How much can be written about depth? ] ] ''4th of July!'' 22:03 (UTC) *How much can be written about depth? ] ] ''4th of July!'' 22:03 (UTC)
*Well, I found a reasonable amount to write about how the depths of craters are measured. I'm sure there's a lot to say about depth in oceans and atmospheres, about optical, depth, and so on. Though many depth-related concepts have their own articles, which should be linked to. -- ] 7 July 2005 03:10 (UTC) *Well, I found a reasonable amount to write about how the depths of craters are measured. I'm sure there's a lot to say about depth in oceans and atmospheres, about optical, depth, and so on. Though many depth-related concepts have their own articles, which should be linked to. -- ] 7 July 2005 03:10 (UTC)
*The vast amount of articles linking to it is more than enough reason to nominate it. --] 8 July 2005 22:44 (UTC) *The vast amount of articles linking to it is more than enough reason to nominate it. --] 8 July 2005 22:44 (UTC)
*Like Phoenix, I'm not sure how much can be written about depth, but I think it's definitely worth a try, especially in view of the many links to this article. ] 9 July 2005 12:16 (UTC)
*I also agree with Phoenix. The fact that there are many links does not mean that this should become an article. It's more like a dictionary definition, and this is why it has so many links to it. ]
*Couldn't hurt to see what would come from a nomination like this. --] 12:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
*Agree with ]. ] (]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;]) 19:42, 2005 July 11 (UTC)
*An encyclopedia is useless if it can't deal well with simple science! ] 17:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
*I expanded the ] page, which should give an idea about the depth (pun intended) of this subject, but for example: depth of water, length, height, depth, and pressure measurement (which ties to ], ], etc.), etc. Some of these issues are adequately explored on other pages, but a general physical science explanation of depth is still needed. ] 18:52, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
*Nearly all the links I could see were from craters, which use a standard box. This should perhaps be linked to ] instead. ] 12:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
**Good point, perhaps bolstering the idea that the page is merely a depth-stub, in need of much expansion. ] 13:27, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
---- ----

Latest revision as of 23:13, 13 November 2016

Depth (July 16)

Nominated on 2 July 2005 21:09 (UTC); needs 10 votes by 16 July.

I'm nominating this because it's linked to from over 1200 articles, and it's still a stub. I added a secton on measuring the depth of craters, but it could still use a lot of expansion. This is a basic concept in physics. -- Beland 2 July 2005 21:09 (UTC)

Support:

  1. Beland 2 July 2005 21:09 (UTC)
  2. Dmcdevit 2 July 2005 21:35 (UTC)
  3. Titoxd 8 July 2005 22:44 (UTC)
  4. mikka (t) 9 July 2005 00:45 (UTC)
  5. Aecis 9 July 2005 12:16 (UTC)
  6. ZeWrestler 12:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  7. Poli 19:42, 2005 July 11 (UTC)
  8. Deryck C. 17:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  9. Steven McCrary 18:52, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • One of the most deserving articles! --Dmcdevit 2 July 2005 21:35 (UTC)
  • How much can be written about depth? Phoenix2 4th of July! 22:03 (UTC)
  • Well, I found a reasonable amount to write about how the depths of craters are measured. I'm sure there's a lot to say about depth in oceans and atmospheres, about optical, depth, and so on. Though many depth-related concepts have their own articles, which should be linked to. -- Beland 7 July 2005 03:10 (UTC)
  • The vast amount of articles linking to it is more than enough reason to nominate it. --Titoxd 8 July 2005 22:44 (UTC)
  • Like Phoenix, I'm not sure how much can be written about depth, but I think it's definitely worth a try, especially in view of the many links to this article. Aecis 9 July 2005 12:16 (UTC)
  • I also agree with Phoenix. The fact that there are many links does not mean that this should become an article. It's more like a dictionary definition, and this is why it has so many links to it. noamse
  • Couldn't hurt to see what would come from a nomination like this. --ZeWrestler 12:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree with Dmcdevit. Poli (talk • contribs) 19:42, 2005 July 11 (UTC)
  • An encyclopedia is useless if it can't deal well with simple science! Deryck C. 17:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I expanded the Depth (disambiguation) page, which should give an idea about the depth (pun intended) of this subject, but for example: depth of water, length, height, depth, and pressure measurement (which ties to measurement, surveying, etc.), etc. Some of these issues are adequately explored on other pages, but a general physical science explanation of depth is still needed. Steven McCrary 18:52, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Nearly all the links I could see were from craters, which use a standard box. This should perhaps be linked to Depth of craters instead. Rich Farmbrough 12:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Good point, perhaps bolstering the idea that the page is merely a depth-stub, in need of much expansion. Steven McCrary 13:27, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Collaboration of the week/Depth: Difference between revisions Add topic