(→‎[[Nog]]: archived)
(→‎[[Crossover]]: putting this dead horse to pasture)
Line 9: Line 9:
**Because they appear to be placed at random --[[User:Gvsualan|Alan del Beccio]] 01:34, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)
**Because they appear to be placed at random --[[User:Gvsualan|Alan del Beccio]] 01:34, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. As far as background info, it has more than some existing FA episodes, and the length seems like a good "middle ground" between The Cage and These are the Voyages. --[[User:Schrei|Schrei]] 02:31, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. As far as background info, it has more than some existing FA episodes, and the length seems like a good "middle ground" between The Cage and These are the Voyages. --[[User:Schrei|Schrei]] 02:31, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Seems like there are articles with less work put into them that are featured, so this one definitely deserves it. I like the navigation for the mirror universe episodes, too. [[User:Coke|Coke]] 21:06, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)
*'''Support''' [[User:Tough Little Ship|Tough Little Ship]] 09:57, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
**'''Comment'''<s>'''Oppose''' only because</s> I think that there are more characters, places, and things that could be FAs with a little community support instead of another episode summary. [[User:Logan 5|Logan 5]] 14:39, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC)
**It's not like there's a limited amount of space for featured articles. If you don't think the article is complete enough to warrant being featured, that's one thing. But if you're opposing just because you think too many featured articles are episodes, I'm sorry, but I don't think that's a good enough reason to oppose. --[[User:T smitts|<span style="color:#FF0000;">T smitts</span>]] 05:39, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC)
**'''Comment''' - Maybe just having an episode summary that's 347 KB long shouldn't be among the reasons for featured, but actual community team work and great content. Maybe give a little while before more episodes. - [[User:AJHalliwell|AJHalliwell]] 18:15, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC)
***I think you're right. I'll put the other episodes up to be removed as featured articles. [[User:Coke|Coke]] 06:37, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
***I made a suggestion in Ten Forward but for the time being your rationale does '''not''' constitute a valid reason unless you wanna be the one who removes all those articles from the featured list. You can't support one and oppose another. That's called hypocrisy [[User:Coke|Coke]] 06:42, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
****And you can't just arbitrarily decide that one persons vote is invalid either. The fact of the matter is, is that we just recently had a half-dozen plus of these episode articles featured in the past couples weeks and it has been the feeling of myself and several others that there have been far too many "easy" featured articles slipping through lately, which really defeats the purpose of having featured articles in the first place. As AJ clearly stated above, give it some time before we start inundating the community again with episode summaries for featured articles and focus more time and effort into ''researching'' into the other 75% of the main characters whose pages are not yet complete or the numerous other people, items or events that could be explored. --[[User:Gvsualan|Alan del Beccio]] 06:59, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
*****Yeah... That's not cool. If the reason is invalid, the admins will do something like that one (I forgot which character it was) where someone said they opposed it because the episode sucked. But I agree about the episode summaries, although I can see Coke's point about raising the bar ex post facto. All I can say is that it's a subjective process so try to adapt rather than going against the grain. --[[User:Schrei|Schrei]] 18:30, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
*'''Strong support'''. After considering this issue over the past few days, I agree with Coke and Smitty about the grounds for opposition being moot. This is about '''''the article''''' not politics. Until such time as someone voices a concern that relates to this specific article, I see no reason to disqualify it. --[[User:Schrei|Schrei]] 18:29, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)
** I'm going to contradict myself by doing this, but Schrei is right, any "political" objections probably should be void, or viewed simply as '''comments'''. It, too, should probably be noted that we really should hold off on nominating any more episode summaries until we can hammer out our discussion currently being held in [[ Memory Alpha talk:Featured article nomination policy]]. --[[User:Gvsualan|Alan del Beccio]] 19:34, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)
***I gotta say, I think that's not really cool. Having admins invalidate votes for anything other than factual error seems to be the exact sort of political debate you want to avoid. A vote is subjective, period. My vote should not be invalidated because someone doesn't like my reasons. I don't want to see another episode as featured article right now, so I opposed. I could make something up to cover that personal preference, much as I feel has been done to other nominees, but I don't. If this is the policy then perhaps I will start doing that. Even if this is the policy going forward, it shouldn't move this article from "with objections" to "without objections" since this was all done before this discussion. [[User:Logan 5|Logan 5]] 20:30, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)
****Ahahahaha, gimme liberty or gimme me death aight? Your reason was st00pid dude. Ima oppose every nomination you make on the basis of not wanting to see another Logan 5 article & see how subjective that is. :-D [[User:Ben Sisqo|Ben Sisqo]] 20:37, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)
*****Whatever, I was trying make a point about trying to impose objective limits on a subjective thing. New user makes immediate impact. Is that the headline you wanted?
******I can't stand those Wikipedia people who are always doing something "to make a point". [[User:Ben Sisqo|Ben Sisqo]] 21:07, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)
*<strike>'''Oppose''' Since I can't just say I don't want an episode as FA let me try to be more specific. The article is ''complete'' but as has been stated, completeness is not a sufficient criteria. The writing is fine, but not terribly exciting because its a step-by-step recap of the episode and frankly not interesting enough to me to warrant FA status. I don't think it adds as much to MA as a featured article should; it doesn't expand the Mirror Universe knowledge, it doesn't tie in other relavent material or episodes, it's a rewrite of the episode, even if it's a long one. [[User:Logan 5|Logan 5]] 20:53, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)</strike> No, I didn't realize it had to be unaminous so I won't stand in the way but would suggest reconsidering unanimty. [[User:Logan 5|Logan 5]] 17:44, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)
**Logan, if you had simply said the part about mirror universe knowledge I'd thank you for clarifying. However, you indicated on both this page and the other talk page that you made the reason up to cover your other reason and that which we call invalid by any other name is still invalid. Anyway, I've added more background information, to the point that I don't think there's any more to be said without getting into stuff that should be in other articles about the mirror universe... --[[User:Schrei|Schrei]] 22:14, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)
***I'm sorry you feel that way, but as I said, I didn't think it was really necessary to elaborate to this point when, as you say, it's essentially the same objection. I just was trying to sort out why it was necessary to give more detail when it doesn't change the base reason for opposing: which is to say that I think these issues are common to episode nominations. [[User:Logan 5|Logan 5]] 00:06, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)
***'''Comment''': As there's no formal definition of what exactly are/aren't valid reasons to object (see: [[Memory Alpha:Featured article nomination policy]]), Logan's objection ''is'' valid. That's why we're having this humongous discussion about this and related topics for some time now. Feel free to participate or continue to participate. -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 22:21, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)
****Whatever. I'm starting to wish I'd never heard the words featured article - it's ''not'' supposed to take this much effort. But for the record, let it be known that Logan's "objection" is not based on this article's merits. --[[User:Schrei|Schrei]] 22:26, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)
*****For the record, let me say that ''merits'' is subjective. I feel my objection is based on merits because I don't think summarizing an episode has the same merits as articles that reach across episodes. The only reason I didn't go into more detail to begin with is because I didn't realize we had to itemize the entire laundry-list of reasons behind an objection when it can be boiled down to a more succinct statement. I'm happy to do that in the future, though, if it clears things up I just thought that your reasons for having issue with my objection had less to do with the detail of the objection and more to do with the idea that you didn't like my reasons, regardless of how detailed they were. To me, that's not a reason to invalidate a vote. [[User:Logan 5|Logan 5]] 00:41, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)
******''Merits'' '''are''' subjective. And frankly, this is ridiculous. If I knew that all it took was one stubborn persons vote saying "I don't want to see another episode as featured article right now, so I oppose", then I sure as hell would have done that a loooong time ago -- as I'm sure many of you know I have been making a stink about the number of featured episode articles we've had over the past month. But for the sake of civility and keeping the peace among the ranks, I chose instead to quitely sit back and not vote rather than to irritate the community with my opinion, when frankly there was nothign wrong with the article(s). But now, seeing that Mr. Logan's vote can be considered valid for a purely ''political'' reason, that goes far beyond the criteria of what one is expected to look for when critiquing articles, then like Schrei says...."Whatever. I'm starting to wish I'd never heard the words featured article - it's ''not'' supposed to take this much effort." Now if you actually made your objections clear as you seem to make them now, which I find faux at best ("I could make something up")...this would have never turned into the so-called "political debate" I wished to avoid. --[[User:Gvsualan|Alan del Beccio]] 00:53, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)
*******You're absolutely right, it is ridiculous. My last comment on this is that I'm ONE VOTE. ONE. If my vote is the only one opposing the nomination then there's no reason it shouldn't go through, regardless of reason. That's my entire point. When we start counting the REASONS for a vote, instead of the vote itself, it's ridiculous. I am ''truly sorry'' to have stirred all this up. I was only trying to state my reasons for oppossing (which were never faux, I only didn't think I was required to explain my entire line of reasoning) and then was told that my reasons weren't valid; something which had never been a criteria that I could find. I'll continue to vote on nominations, and if I oppose I'll be sure to list the entire reasoning behind it even though I think the true ''political'' agenda is objecting to an oppose based on the reasoning rather than any factual errors. Again, I'm not trying to cause problems. Really. [[User:Logan 5|Logan 5]] 01:04, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)
********Maybe you didn't realize this logan, but the votes are supposed to be '''''unanimous''''', meaning one vote very much matters. Perhaps we need to change that policy to "overwhelming majority" or some other term. I know Wikipedia wouldn't survive a day with a policy of unanimity - this might just be a sign of MA's growing pains. In the meantime, would you mind rescinding your vote, since you apparently didn't understand the implications? --[[User:Schrei|Schrei]] 15:10, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)
* '''Support'''. - [[User:AJHalliwell|AJHalliwell]] 13:39, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. I'm glad we semi-resolved this issue (at least as much as plugging the hole in a sinking ship). But I'd like everyone to visit [[Memory_Alpha_talk:Featured_article_nomination_policy|the policy talk page]] for some information on "the episode issue" and please weigh in on both Alan's and Cid's suggestions. --[[User:Schrei|Schrei]] 21:03, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)
*'''Lukewarm'''... It's not as bad as These Are the Voyages (33kb v 79kb) but there are parts where it could use pruning. It looks like there's more going on here than I can tell so Ill stay neutral only because it's not as anally written as the other one. [[User:Ben Sisqo|Ben Sisqo]] 01:38, 21 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:18, 23 September 2005


Nominations without objections

Emissary (episode)

  • Support; I think you guys gotta agree it's a solid article & not overdone like the Enterprise finale.--Ben Sisqo 23:32, 20 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Support A fine page. Valley Forge 12:23, 21 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Who keeps striking my votes??? --Vedek Dukat 00:28, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • Because they appear to be placed at random --Alan del Beccio 01:34, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. As far as background info, it has more than some existing FA episodes, and the length seems like a good "middle ground" between The Cage and These are the Voyages. --Schrei 02:31, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Nominations with objections

The Cage

This article has a good summary, and extensive background information. It seems to be the kind of article that users want as Featured Articles. --Defiant | Talk 12:21, 21 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Mild oppose. This is much closer to what I think a Featured episode should be, but I don't think it's complete. The summary is a good length, but I think Continuation could make more detailed references to "The Menagarie" (and some continuity porn about the USS Talos, Christopher Pike Medal of Valor, and so on). Landmarks could use a little more info on why they rejected it, yet requested a new pilot, and what changes they specifically asked for if any. There could be further elaborations in the Background about the first appearance of the Orion Slave Women, and in Cast about how or why Pike was replaced with Kirk for the next pilot and so on. Logan 5 10:02, 21 Sep 2005 (EDT)
  • Comment. I chose not to enter the quagmire of TATV's nomination, I'm not sure what the heck kind of vote "Lukewarm" is for Crossover, and I have issues with the claim that Emissary has a "better" summary than TATV... But while I greatly respect your work, Defiant, you seem to have nominated this article more "to make a point" than anything. Doesn't this nomination just throw gasoline on the fire of the episode debate? --Schrei 11:56, 21 Sep 2005 (EDT)
    • Basically, I'm just trying to find out the most favorable method of episode articles, if you understand what I mean. As TATV was rejected for length, I'm trying to find out what episode articles should be like. At the moment, it seems like users prefer less summary and more background info, like this episode article. If users reject to this article, it should give a better idea of how it could be improved and how episode articles in general can be improved. --Defiant | Talk 17:14, 21 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • I haven't participated in these discussions yet (and I definitely think this topic should be discussed elsewhere, not on the nominations page), but I think Logan is right. Basically, a good "summary" should summarize the episode content and not simply retell it, and a good "episode article" should consist of more than just a lengthy summary. As such, I consider this a better episode article than others. -- Cid Highwind 13:29, 21 Sep 2005 (EDT)
  • Oppose. This nomination must be a joke. The summary must be expanded in far more detail for it to be worthy of featured status. Ottens 14:12, 21 Sep 2005 (EDT)
    • That's actually being debated right now in policy and other areas. The article for TATV is being opposed in part because its summary is far too long in some opinions. Logan 5 19:48, 21 Sep 2005 (UTC)

These Are the Voyages...

These Are the Voyages...
  • Okay, I know there is currently a discussion going on about nominating episode articles, but work began on this episode's summary long before that discussion began, and that work is now complete. This was a collaborative effort between Defiant and myself and I believe is very worthy of becoming a featured article. It includes an extensive and very well-written summary (again, by Defiant and myself), images, background info, quotes, and even a chronology of the dates specified in the episode to assist in keeping track of events. In my opinion, this was a very emotional and memorable episode and the integrity and quality of the article and the work that was put into it justifies its becoming a featured article. Support. --From Andoria with Love 17:22, 18 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. This article reads too much like an episode summary. --Schrei 17:26, 18 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I may be putting my head in the noose for this but... is the chronology really necessary? It looks a little excessive, and seems to be a rehash of the references in the main text. It's only purpose seems to be to give dates to the events mentioned in the main text. Can't you merge the chronology into the main text? --Oshah 20:41, 18 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - As stated by "From Andoria with Love", I contributed to the article. According to the nomination policy, however, my vote is still valid. --Defiant | Talk 12:06, 20 Sep 2005 (EDT)
  • Comment. Without fully opposing: this article strikes me as complete to the point of being TOO detailed. It reads as an overlong summary, without anything that actually expands on the episode or MA in general. Logan 5 15:55, 20 Sep 2005 (UTC)
To elaborate: For me, an episode article would actually expand on the episode or MA if more attention was given to the backrgound area. Episodes like "Affliction" are the perfect place to discuss the decades-long debate about the different appearances in Klingons along with all the speculation by fans about the differences but it only gets 1-2 sentences in the current version. Episodes like TaTV should talk about the references at length, possibly the overall ratings issue etc with ENT; it should discuss the differences (or possible differences) between the Coalition and Federation, the controversy over Trip's death and much more. To me, long blow-by-blow summaries are not that interesting to read and don't give a casual visitor anything they can't get by actually watching the episode, whereas background, like the chronology puts the episode in the context of Trek and meta-Trek. Logan 5 12:32, 20 Sep 2005 (EDT)
  • Oppose (first oppose or support vote ever) I find this a very long episode summary, although summary is not the correct word anymore. I even did'nt have the energy to read the whole article but to me it does not read 'nice' so to speak. I find it confusing and have some problems with the following paragraphs.
Troi replies that she has never run the holoprogram and may have visited the craft as a child, but tends to get all the museum ships confused. When Riker invites the counselor to visit the recreation of the historic vessel and join him in the holodeck, Troi gratefully objects, afraid that she could miss an appointment she has in an hour. Holding his hand out for hers, Riker insists that she accompany him and assures her that she will not be late for her appointment. Troi soon accepts the commander's invitation and they exit the briefing room together.
I think it is 're creation' or 're-creation' (as far as I know they are not playing tennis), ' and join him in the holodeck ' should be ' and to join him on the holodeck '. Furthermore Troi is afraid to miss an appointment so I think it should be ' afraid that she might miss an appointment ' or ' afraid she might miss the appointment she has in an hour '. Troi does or does not accept the invitation, soon seems irrelevant here. ' Riker insists that she accompany him and assures her that she will not be late for her appointment, whereupon Troi accepts the commander's invitation '
As Riker stands, his head almost collides with the room's ceiling, but Troi quickly alerts him and the commander manages to avoid the roof. Riker observes that there is no fish tank in Archer's ready room, whereas a pet lionfish named Livingston is kept in a tank in the ready room of Captain Jean-Luc Picard, the commanding officer of the Enterprise-D
I believe that your head does not collides but hits the ceiling, objects collide.
the commanding officer of.. seems irrelevant to me, everyone knows who Picard is and what he does. Who and what Picard is, should be extablished sooner.
On the bridge, Riker mentions that, although Archer did not have a fish, he owned a pet dog. As she walks towards the captain's chair, Troi remembers that the animal was named after one of the musketeers and Riker reminds her that the name was "Porthos".
'the animal' seems not appropriate 'dogs name' or 'its name was' sounds better.
Sitting in Archer's command chair, Troi remarks that the seat is extremely comfortable. As first officer of the Enterprise-D, Riker notes that there is no seat for his position on the NX-01.
That Riker was the 1701-D first officer was already established in the teaser, so I don't think it need to be repeated here.
When she presses a switch on the science console,
Seems to me that you press a button and use or turn a switch. Pressing a switch simply does not sound right.
Reed then relates to Tucker that Archer believes there will be another Enterprise before long
I dont't think 'relates' is correctly used here, in my opinion 'tells' or 'tell' would fit better.
I think it also misses 'the were it all takes place'. In the background info it says that it all took place during the episode "The Pegasus". As far as I am concerned this should be in the article itself, teaser or first act. As already stated this 'summary' it highly detailed, maby to much. As I already said I onyl read the first part not the hole.
Comment I don't think that 'a collaborative effort between "him" and "me"' is the right choice of words for a nomination. More archivist were busy on the article, and yes "him" and "me" did the biggest part but it sounds to much that FA status is already expected and only a formality. -- Q 17:07, 20 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Oppose - Vedek Dukat 22:02, 20 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • Oppose as well because it's "too good" if you wanna look at it that way, tho I think good is a relative term. This is like if I assigned you a book report and you handed in a rewritten version of the book with the deleted scenes included: It's not as satisfying and frankly unacceptable. Maybe you've heard of the law of diminishing returns; as you write more and more, the reader becomes less and less interested. Sorry to be harsh but as someone who didnt watch Enterprise I just want an overall idea that's longer than a sentence, not the entire episode. Tone it down to the size of Emissary and Ill support it. Ben Sisqo 01:08, 21 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: And so the dillema continues. Maybe we should have an MA version of WikiSource? One part for an actual summary (Emissary Like) and then the "LCARSource" (hehe, start coinin names in case this catches on ;-)) for a word-for-word, in depth, mega-well written Defiant-class description. The point is, a page the size of Emissary could be written in a fairly short time, and wouldn't show the effort that these do to gain FA status. (Didn't Emissary get voted down a while back?) Again, the conundrum continues. - AJHalliwell 01:20, 21 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • But see, not that I'm saying this is what your article is, but someone could work for hours on end and still end up with the biggest piece of garbage ever seen. The fact that someone put time and effort into it for (in my opinion) no reason says not that it deserves to be featured but that they need to reevaluate their writing style. Why are episode articles featured anyway? Not the most encyclopedia-like articles from what I can see. Ben Sisqo 21:26, 20 Sep 2005 (EDT)
    • Ben Sisqo, why would you leave the above comment if you didn't think it was relevant to this article? Seems to me like you're commenting on the article but afraid to state that you are! Frankly, I am insulted by the comment, "the biggest piece of garbage ever seen", and I don't think there's a place for such comments on MA.
    • Also, you clearly do not understand the reason why FAs exist, if your following comment is to be believed - "Why are episode articles featured anyway? Not the most encyclopedia-like articles from what I can see." Yes, a comparison can be made between Memory Alpha and an encyclopedia, but only in general. Most encyclopedias do not have FAs, if any at all, and there is no indication that the entirety of MA (including discussion and policy pages) should be interpreted as an encyclopedia. FAs represent the best work on MA, and this article is clearly one of those examples. The reluctance of those members of MA who oppose featured status for this article just goes to show how personally motivated this site has become. It's quite clear to me that any other articles I work on and nominate will quickly be insulted and thrown to the side on personal grounds. --Defiant | Talk 12:02, 21 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Nova class

  • Self-nomination. I have been contributing a lot of information to this article lately, as I thought it could use a lot more detail than there originally was. Using the class' MSD, episode info, ship pictures, etc. I was able to greatly expand this article to include a lot more information than it used to. I personally think it features a great amount of information and is almost to the point where no more data can be added. - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 16:08, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • Data not, but images definitely. --Memory 00:10, 19 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Support I think this article encompasses everything about the topic. There is nothing (That I can see) that can be added. Tobyk777 18:59, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Apparently, quite a lot of time and work has been put in this article, and it includes, as far as I can see, everything that can be written on the Nova class starship. I would suggest, though, changing the tense to the past tense, e.a.: the Nova class was rather than is, as most starship class articles are written in that tense. As there are no rules on this, though, it's no valid reason to object, and for the rest the article's great. Ottens | SITE TALK | 10:36, 18 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment All the different subsections seem a little unnecessary to me, given that most of them only contain 2-4 sentences, especially in the technical areas. To me, this is one that falls under the category of complete but not really an FA. Logan 5 00:50, 19 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • I've reorganized the page some and rewritten it in other places. The tense should be present tense, except in cases that we are talk about something that is history oriented -- as it written from the pov that they are still in service. Anyway, No vote, but lets just say if and when I make one, its going to have a lot to do with the fact that there are very few pictures depicting the sections featured (ie, the bridge, science labs, corridors, capts ready room, any other rooms featured in "Equinox" 1 & 2) in the article, much like they are pictured in D'deridex class.
    • And in response to Logan, I agree, compared to D'deridex class, there is far less to this than there is to D'deridex, most of is included is just fluff. I almost wish we just had a semi-featured section that we could put these "complete but not really an FA", which might include this and Ambassador class, just for the sake of organization. --Alan del Beccio 03:21, 19 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Presents non-canon/background information as facts, including the sidebar (Type, Length, Speed, Armament, etc.), (probably) the exact design goals (replacement, mission type, ...). All this has to be checked and eventually removed. Another reason for my vote are the format issues Logan brought up (subsection/content ratio) which, I think, prevent this article from being especially well-written at the moment. -- Cid Highwind 12:58, 20 Sep 2005 (EDT)
    • Comment. I was curious as to what this 'non-canon' information was? (Apart from the sidebar you noted) A number of items I found was from the ship's official MSD and ship views (Hence where I got the escape pod count along with crew quarters). Thanks to Logan (?) who reorganized some of the more minor categories to more appropriate areas, I personally think it looks better too. - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 17:11, 21 Sep 2005 (EDT)
      • Actually that was me. I put it through the paper template I have been using for putting starship class pages together. And again, I still think it needs a lot more images to go with the sections that are being referred to. --Alan del Beccio 01:07, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Wormhole relay station

  • Self-nomination. It may not qualify in length or entertainment, but after I wrote the first draft, it seemed remarkably complete, and I feel it's as well written as Bajoran wormhole and Dreadnought (missile). History, logistics, service record, trivia, it's all there. --Oshah 09:29, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Valley Forge 09:56, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I think it needs some minor editing and slight expansions before its really ready for prime-time but not much. Logan 5 13:28, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • Changing to Support. Most of my quibbles with the language have been taken care of by subesquent edits. Logan 5 19:12, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, I quite like it. Maybe some odd turns of phrase, but nothing content-wise that should prevent it. — THOR =/\= 14:42, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • Is the pic appropriate? The image's description says it's the Amargosa observatory, which makes no mention of the wormhole or DS9. --Schrei 03:04, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • It's only the name of the picture, the relay station and amargosa observatory are the one and the same model that was used to portrait it. -- Q 07:23, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)
        • I've added an extra note to the image description page to remove confusion.--Oshah 09:21, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)
          • Actually, though the Amargosa Observatory was re-used in this episode, the model was modified. The 2 long structures at the side were shortened drastically, furthermore, the relay station lacks the metal ropes that run from the two long antennae to a protruding spike at the center of the station. This spike was removed, along with those metal ropes, when the Amargosa Observatory was turned into the Subspace relay station. I'm brandnew to Memory Alpha, so forgive me, if I do anything wrong, but I uploaded a few screenshots of the Subspace relay station that show the differences and might also be useful for this excellent article. -- Jörg 16:53, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)
            • We'll need to know the copyright to those pictures before we can use them. (judging by the resolution, they look like screenshots to me), therefore, we may be able to apply the {{msgparamount}} template there.--Oshah 16:04, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)
              • Yep, those are screenshots from the DS9 Season 3 DVDs, I took them today.--Jörg 16:11, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Jörg 18:34, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. A great example of what the non-episode FAs should be. Well done everyone who contributed to it. --Schrei 18:38, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Mild Objection - Sorry if this sounds disorganized, I wrote it as I read the article -- I've combed through this article quite thoroughly because I really want to see this succeed, and I've noticed several contributions to this article that are completely unrelated to the relay station. This includes: the entire section about "Trakor's Third Prophecy", which seems to be more about Bajoran religion -- and a mini summary of "Destiny", also other minute sentences like: "Gilora and Ulani returned to the Cardassian Science Ministry" (which I removed), and stuff like that. Regarding the Bajoran religion section, I was hoping we could discuss that before so that I could change my vote, as I really feel that does not belong in this article. And yes, althought it is related, it really should just be linked to the article through the appropriate links and not given an entire paragraph. Also, I've reorganized the article some by moving the logistics section above the service record section, as it made more sense to have it there. I also moved the italicized comments at the bottom of the page into the background section and edited some of the grammar and spelling. --Alan del Beccio 19:34, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment I think that some of those edits (eg, moving the Logistics section and removing some of the extraneous info on Gilora and Ulani) are justified. However, I think the Trakor's prophecy piece definitely belongs there. It was a central story to the deployment of the station and almost prevented it from being deployed at all. Perhaps the entire text of the prophecy doesn't belong, but certainly mentioning it and referencing how it was interpreted and mis-interpreted regarding this specific station is crucial to a full reading of the article. Logan 5 20:22, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Removed some of the prophecy and made an relation between it and the relay station project. How about now ? -- Q 13:19, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Jaf 15:22, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)Jaf
    • Comment-I think I trimmed the episode summary part off of it. (anon)
      • Reading it as it stands now, I'm not sure if anon took out too much or not enough. It feels like some of the prophecy story is in it and some not. I'm tempted to take it even furtther and remove everything except that Yarka predicted doom and Sisko proved him wrong. That would leave it awfully short though... --Schrei 04:43, 18 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I'm curious, are this images intended to be used for anything: Image:Wormhole relay station 3.jpg; Image:Wormhole relay station 5.jpg; Image:Wormhole relay station 1.jpg? --Alan del Beccio 07:04, 18 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • With the exception of Img5 (swapped with Img2), I doubt I will use those graphics for the article. They're not exactly great images, and the information they convey seem to be covered by the other pictures. I'd vote to have them deleted. --Oshah 12:23, 18 Sep 2005 (UTC)
        • I have already added them to the image to delete page. -- Q 17:04, 18 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.