(→‎Nominations with objections: archiving IAESL, nomination unsuccessful)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{FeatNom}}[[Category:Memory Alpha maintenance|{{PAGENAME}}]]
{{FeatNom}}[[Category:Memory Alpha maintenance|{{PAGENAME}}]]
==Nominations without objections==
==Nominations without objections==
==Nominations with objections==
==={{e|Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges}}===
A few months ago, I put quite a bit of work into this article by writing the summary, inserting images to compliment the text and adding several background points. I'd like to think it is as comprehensive as it can be and therefore would like to place it up for self-nomination. I hope everyone finds it alright, but please do comment on anything that can be done to improve it further. Thanks! :) --| [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Open a channel</span>]]</sup> 19:57, August 10, 2011 (UTC)
:'''Comment''' - Almost all of the background information comes from only two sources - the ''[[Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion|DS9 Companion]]'' and the AOL chats. While between those two sources there's plenty of info, have you checked, for example, the script (available [http://www.st-minutiae.com/academy/literature329/index.html here]) and the [[DS9 Season 7 DVD]]?&ndash;[[User:Cleanse|Cleanse]] <small><sup>( [[User talk:Cleanse|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Cleanse|contribs]] )</sup></small> 03:20, August 11, 2011 (UTC)
::I did check [http://www.st-minutiae.com/academy/literature329/565.txt the script] but as far as I could see there was nothing note-worthy that could be added to the article. However, if you notice something that I have missed, please feel free to correct me! As for the DVD, I down't own it so I can't see if there's anything worth adding from that. --| [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Open a channel</span>]]</sup> 10:58, August 11, 2011 (UTC)
::''Addendum'': While reading through the script again, I did notice a minor piece of info that I have now added; the working title was "Untitled Bashir." Other than that, I don't see anything else that can be added from the script. --| [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Open a channel</span>]]</sup> 11:02, August 11, 2011 (UTC)
:'''Comment''' - Might I suggest breaking up some of the acts into more paragraphs ? Some of the acts contain very large (compact) bodies of text; paragraphing them improves readability I think. Otherwise a thorough piece, as I've come to expect from you.--[[User:Sennim|Sennim]] 12:08, August 11, 2011 (UTC)
::Thank you so much for the compliment, Sennim! I appreciate it and I have acted on your advice to break up the paragraphs into more "manageable" chunks as this doesn't change the content of the article and (I feel) isn't likely to cause an edit war while under nomination. --| [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Open a channel</span>]]</sup> 13:42, August 11, 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Ah, much more readable. In respect to the perceived limited quantity of BGinfo, that is not a shortcoming of Trekfan. By that time publications on those aspects of the productions started to wane (In that respect the demise of the ''[[Star Trek: The Magazine]]'' has to be seriously lamented). The only two other sources I can think of that he could have consulted were the corresponding issues of Starlog's ''[[The Official Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Magazine]]'' and ''[[Cinefantastique]]''. I have my doubts about the usefulness of the first and the second one I have. There was an article in it about the episode, but the info therein was covered by the ''Companion''. It is gratifying to read that the production team in general stick to their stories over time. DS9 is particularly well served by its ''Companion'' as it is what BGinfo is concerned the most superior publication of its kind I've ever encountered of any production, ''Trek'' or otherwise (the ''Voyager'' follow-up was a crushing disappointment and the very worst publication)...Checked the DVD, no info on the episode there.-- [[User:Sennim|Sennim]] 10:41, August 12, 2011 (UTC)
::'''Comment''': If the material from the compendium is duplicated (or similar) in the ''Cinefantastique'' issue, then it might be worth adding citations from there too, so that there is the "double source" (so to speak). -- [[User:Sulfur|sulfur]] 12:04, August 12, 2011 (UTC)
:'''Comment''' Very well, if Trekfan has no objections I'll make some edits in the BGinfo to reflect the Cinefantastique source, when I find the time somewhere next week. (WARNING! nitpick: ''Cinefantastique'' is the older publication :))<br/>''Addendum'': [[User:Defiant|Defiant]] has beaten me to the punch, great job ''Defiant''!!!--[[User:Sennim|Sennim]] 13:37, August 12, 2011 (UTC)
::Excellent job with the additions to the bg info, Defiant. Could there possibly be anything more than can be done to this article? It looks pretty solid now, more so than some episode FAs. --| [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Open a channel</span>]]</sup> 15:37, August 12, 2011 (UTC)
:::Thanks for the compliments, guys. I reckon the summary could be edited down some and made more concise. Unless the episode's teaser is about 10/15 minutes long, I don't think its supposedly summarized version should be as lengthy as it is. Also, we should select one tense for quotes, so they can be made more consistent (either "''Ronald D. Moore explained, "...etc.''" and "''As Ronald D. Moore explained; "...etc.''" OR "''Ronald D. Moore explains, "...etc.''" and "''As Ronald D. Moore explains; "...etc.''" but not ''both'' past and present). --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 20:56, August 12, 2011 (UTC)
::IIRC, the teaser for this episode is a fairly long one (as teasers go) so I would be opposed to changing that (particularly when we already have a supporting vote - don't want to get into the whole [[Reginald Barclay]] thing again!), but I do agree with the tense thing as that is relatively minor. I didn't even realize I had written it like that when I did, but I will correct any I see and post back here. --| [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Open a channel</span>]]</sup> 01:42, August 13, 2011 (UTC)
::OK, I think I managed to get all of the "tense" issues, but if I missed any please let me know. I changed them to read "Moore commented...", "Behr said..." etc etc. --| [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Open a channel</span>]]</sup> 01:48, August 13, 2011 (UTC)
*I wish to '''oppose''' the article's nomination, then, since I feel that the summary has too much rambling. This content issue is also clearly in dispute, as TrekFan evidently believes differently. I feel we, as a community, should concentrate on whatever each article needs, rather than just what is needed to push them through the FA nomination process. There is more info available from ''Cinefantastique'' which is missing from the article and I'm not completely convinced that there's no info whatsoever that can be gleaned from the script. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 07:48, August 13, 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. I'm going to join Defiant in opposition, as I share his concerns both on the article's content and with regards to the nomination process itself.--[[User:31dot|31dot]] 09:03, August 13, 2011 (UTC)
::Defiant, if I may ask? What do you mean by "rambling" and could you provide a couple of examples for me? --| [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Open a channel</span>]]</sup> 19:12, August 16, 2011 (UTC)
:::I certainly welcome you asking, TrekFan. :) I wish I could provide some examples, but I just find the teaser and act subsections really too daunting to tackle reading them. Some of the big blocks (i.e. paragraphs) render as 17 or 18 lines of text on my screen; frankly, I find that too much and it makes watching the actual episode a far more appealing prospect. IMHO, summaries should be short, summarized descriptions of the main plot events. Having become occasionally too close to some articles to maintain an objective viewpoint myself, though, I think I can also understand this issue from a different angle. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 20:58, August 16, 2011 (UTC)
::So, it's rather that you find the write-up too long as opposed to the actual quality of it? --| [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Open a channel</span>]]</sup> 23:43, August 16, 2011 (UTC)
:::Indeed. I'm not even able to gave an assessment of the quality, as I simply find it too dauntingly long a read. Also, the bg info section could be improved as it's currently incomplete (as I stated earlier). Before I added the bg info from ''[[Cinefantastique]]'' to the extent that I did add it, I wanted to get a handle on the episode's events, so that I had a better idea of what the magazine article was talking about. A big part of me wanted to get that info concisely from the summary, though watching the episode was admittedly a far greater prospect (due to the effort it would take to plow through the summary), so that's what I did. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 07:47, August 17, 2011 (UTC)
::I understand what you're saying, though this episode is one that has a lot of twists and turns in the plot, and so can be difficult to follow while watching it anyway. I guess that was bound to be reflected in the summary. If you know of a way to condense it further, be my guest! :D I just wanted to make sure everything was in there. --| [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Open a channel</span>]]</sup> 15:26, August 17, 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Well written and researched, deserves FA status.--[[User:Shamutto|Shamutto]] 20:32, August 20, 2011 (UTC)
::Thank you, Shamutto. :) --| [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Open a channel</span>]]</sup> 00:52, August 21, 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - I'll second Shamutto's comments; this is an all-around solid article in my opinion. If Defiant feels he can shorten the summary and that he can add more information from ''Cinefantastique'' I wish him well in his efforts, but I am happy to endorse the article as-is. &ndash;[[User:Cleanse|Cleanse]] <small><sup>( [[User talk:Cleanse|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Cleanse|contribs]] )</sup></small> 03:34, August 21, 2011 (UTC)
::Thanks, Cleanse! :) --| [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Open a channel</span>]]</sup> 15:19, August 21, 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - While some parts of the summary seem a bit lengthy, I still consider this article to be worth getting FA-status. The plot synopsis reads well and the background info is tremendous. --[[User:36ophiuchi|36ophiuchi]] 15:41, August 21, 2011 (UTC)
::Thanks for the comments, 360! --| [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Open a channel</span>]]</sup> 15:50, August 21, 2011 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': The second sentence of Act one is bit ambiguous, but otherwise it is well writen and meets the criteria well.--[[User:Starfleet Academy|Starfleet Academy]] ([[User talk:Starfleet Academy|live long and prosper]]) 07:51, August 22, 2011 (UTC)
:'''Comment''': I've edited the episode's first scene and could do the rest, but it would probably constitute the article being unstable for FA acceptance, since it would likely be classed as a rewrite (even with reused bits from the summary as it now stands). I don't really see the point of this article gaining FA status if it still requires a lot of work, IMO, and will need to be changed dramatically after it is accepted as an FA, so my oppose vote remains. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 09:10, August 22, 2011 (UTC)
:In fact, the addition of the info from ''[[Cinefantastique]]'' alone (which I could easily do too) would probably mean the article would be regarded as not stable enough. Consideration of this situation as well as the current absence of the ''Cinefantastique'' info (equating to incompleteness of the article) reinforces my opinion that the FA nomination should be opposed... for now. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 09:17, August 22, 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - I found the plot summary to be coherent and well-articulated, with superb composition. I would have to agree that an episode dealing with intrigue and espionage would merit a little verbosity, otherwise a casual reader could easily get lost and never fully appreciate its nuances. The background information was handled especially well, and contained a lot of interesting factoids relevant to the story's conception and production. Lastly, I think the article does great justice to what is (arguably) the most compelling installment of the Bashir/Sloan arc, and I think it is a fine candidate for an FA. --[[User:QuarksTreasure|QuarksTreasure]] 15:07, August 26, 2011 (UTC)
::Your comments are appreciated, QuarksTreasure! --| [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Open a channel</span>]]</sup> 23:10, August 26, 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''': I have reread the sentence I talked about earlier and for me this is well worthy of FA. I would be repeating myself to go any further, so I will leave it at that. :) --<font face="Times New Roman">'''[[User:Starfleet Academy|Starfleet Academy]] "[[User talk:Starfleet Academy|live long and prosper]]"'''</font> 04:07, August 27, 2011 (UTC)
:'''Comment''': I don't really understand why users keep posting here, since the article is definitely incomplete. That's a fact that stops it being accepted, so there seems little point in continuing to push it through the FA nomination process, regardless of the aforementioned fact. I think it would be a lot better if users waited 'til after the article was up to scratch and finally completed. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 13:00, August 30, 2011 (UTC)
::It's not being "pushed" through the nomination process. The fact is it is your opinion that the article is incomplete and if there is an overwhelming number of supports for the article as it is, then "concensus" will in fact have being reached. The fact is six people - not including myself - find the article to be complete and well written. If that number increases, and there is nothing stopping it from increasing, then there will be an large majority supporting its inclusion amongst the other FAs. There is nothing forceful about it. --| [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Open a channel</span>]]</sup> 13:05, August 30, 2011 (UTC)
:Since it's likely not everyone here has ''[[Cinefantastique]]'', Volume 32, Number 4/5, I'll let the truth be known; there is an article in that magazine that contains more info about the episode than what is currently available on the MA page. Therefore, it's definitely a fact that the page, as it currently stands, is incomplete. It's just plain incorrect and utter nonsense to say it's only my opinion that the bg info section in incomplete. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 13:37, August 30, 2011 (UTC)
:In fact, this discussion also clearly shows that the article's content is currently disputed, yet another factor preventing it from being accepted as an FA. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 13:50, August 30, 2011 (UTC)
:::TrekFan, you must not have read the requirements completely, then. This page does not work on consensus, but requires "all objections to be resolved". This is not an oversight, either, but has deliberately been added to avoid this becoming a competition to get as many pro-votes as possible. To answer Defiant's original question - people keep posting here because TrekFan keeps inviting them to - which is not forbidden, but leaves an aftertaste if that invitation goes out to people that have three overall edits in more than a year, none of them related to this article. -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 13:53, August 30, 2011 (UTC)
:I agree; it's not forbidden, but doesn't seem to be very good practice (not only if there's users who are unfamiliar with MA's policies and guidelines, etc. and just see that on their page, but also if there's areas in which the article still needs improvement). I was referring to the "campaigning" aspect of TrekFan's strategy when I made reference to pushing the article through the FA nomination process. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 14:08, August 30, 2011 (UTC)
::::I don't have as much of a problem with the participation encouragement in general- though if it was me doing it I would state that I was the nominator and principle editor. I do think that to truly be a FA it should be good enough for users to comment on without being encouraged to do so- but it's a tough balance to strike between encouragement and standing on its own. As Cid said I'm not sure if TrekFan realized that this page is not by consensus. --[[User:31dot|31dot]] 15:14, August 30, 2011 (UTC)
::I make no apologies for attempting to encourage participation in the whole voting process. In fact, it's something I openly make a point of on [[User:TrekFan#User History|my user page]]. Quite frankly, if you don't like me trying to encourage people - other than the "normal" users - to vote, I don't care. You will also notice that I am not "telling" people to vote for the article, but merely asking them to read it and make up their own mind. If they want to oppose it then fine. I'd prefer some input from various users than none at all. You will also notice that I have been careful to ensure the people I am inviting to participate are [[Memory_Alpha:Featured_article_nomination_policy#Voting_for_nominations|eligible as per the voting guidelines]] so there is no violation of MA policy there. As for the whole "all objections resolved", I have seen articles nominated in the past ([[Talk:Klaa|1]], [[Talk:Hippocrates Noah|2]], [[Talk:K't'inga class|3]], [[Talk:World War III|4]]) that have had many supporting votes and only one or two opposes yet have gone through because of the large number of supports, so that argument doesn't stand up. Finally, I don't know where you get this whole feeling of articles being "pushed through" from. Is it perhaps because I like to take an active role in nominating articles I feel are up to the quality required, and not just ones I have worked on myself I might add? You take an interest and everybody jumps down your throat. Whatever happened to [http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/AssumeGoodFaith assuming good faith]? Anyway, this has gone off topic. If you wish to continue this discussion further, I invite you to post on [[User talk:TrekFan|my talk page]]. I will not be continuing this conversation here. --| [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Open a channel</span>]]</sup> 15:31, August 30, 2011 (UTC)
:::::All of those FA noms are from 2009, 2005, 2005, and 2006. Things have changed significantly in a while. -- [[User:Sulfur|sulfur]] 15:43, August 30, 2011 (UTC)
:::[http://en.memory-alpha.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Madacs&diff=prev&oldid=1321589 This invitation] made me scratch my head (and now that you mention it, the user hasn't nearly enough edits to be able to participate here) - but it's true, this is just a tangent and should be continued elsewhere. What is ''not'' just tangential is the fact that this nomination is basically stalled by Defiant's oppose at the moment (and if it helps, I will add my own '''oppose''' for the same reasons) and, according to policy, this nomination will only go through once that opposition is resolved. Inviting further people to vote for something that is, without further work, not going to happen anyway seems a little unfair to me. -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 16:04, August 30, 2011 (UTC)
:And even if that work was carried out at this point, it would prevent the article becoming an FA, since it won't have been stable over a period of the required weeks. TrekFan, what I call pushing through the FA nomination process is continuing to ask users to vote when it's actually to the detriment of the article. Since it won't be accepted as an FA at this time, a period of seven days' inactivity here, followed by a renomination would have been (and still would be) in the best interests of the article. I have been assuming good faith, though, and made no indication that I believed you're reasoning for the campaigning has been anything more malicious than your ignorance over the policies and guidelines. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 16:12, August 30, 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:01, 6 September 2011


Nominations without objections

Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.