(→‎[[Nova class]]: archived, it has been well over 10 days)
Line 21: Line 21:
*****I think that was Makon's point. You consider it well written for being to the point and compact, Defiant considers it well written for being thorough, and there are plenty who agree with both of you. I think Ottens' reservations about Trials and Tribble-ations and yours about this article are a perfect example of why length is not part of the criteria for FA status. --[[User:Schrei|Schrei]] 21:16, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)
*****I think that was Makon's point. You consider it well written for being to the point and compact, Defiant considers it well written for being thorough, and there are plenty who agree with both of you. I think Ottens' reservations about Trials and Tribble-ations and yours about this article are a perfect example of why length is not part of the criteria for FA status. --[[User:Schrei|Schrei]] 21:16, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)
===[[Trials and Tribble-ations]]===
*'''Support'''. Another well balanced article. [[User:Ben Sisqo|Ben Sisqo]] 23:36, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)
**<strike>'''Strong Oppose''' The summary ins't even close to detailed enough. It also doesn't follow the normal summary format. [[User:Tobyk777|Tobyk777]] 02:08, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)</strike>
**1) You just supported an article of similar length above.
**2) I think it's clear nobody wants the nominations that tell you every time someone picks his nose.
**3) I never liked that whole five act thing because it kind of ruins the effect.
*4) '''Strong support'''. [[User:Vedek Dukat|Vedek Dukat]] 02:28, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)
**Toby... Would you rather have it be like These are the Voyages? And I say that with respect toward Defiant and Shran, it's just too long for our purposes. [[User:Ben Sisqo|Ben Sisqo]] 04:34, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)
*<strike> '''Neutral''' based on the fact that I know nothing about TOS and can't judge the background. I've also only glanced over the summary, and assuming Emissary is the "right" length, it may be a ''little'' short, but not enough to oppose based on length. --[[User:Schrei|Schrei]] 06:05, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)</strike>
*You guys make some good points, opposition withdrawn. I moved it back to the top of the page. [[User:Tobyk777|Tobyk777]] 18:21, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. I have tried to fix some tense changes, but as my grammar is not the best, someone should probably double check it. <strike>I also wonder if there is more information available concerning how they did the mergning of the old footage with the new. That would be fascinating.</strike> Its a good article in any case. [[User:Makon|Makon]] 18:58, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)
*<s>'''Oppose'''. I don't think the summery is Featured Article-quality yet. [[User:Ottens|Ottens]] 09:20, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)</s>
**Can you please give some other reason? I '''really''' don't want another it's too long/it's not long enough debate. And that's not targeting you or anyone else - it's just that length is a highly subjective criterion of which everyone obviously has a unique definition. --[[User:Schrei|Schrei]] 10:03, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)
*Well then, what, in my opinion, an episode page should look like to be a Featured Article: the page should feature a short description of the episode at the top of the page (and that means more than simply one line); then it should feature a detailed act-by-act summery of the episode's content, accompanied by a number of images which illustrate the text; then there should be some memorable quotes; and then there should be an ''extended'' background information section (more than merely naming a few remarkable fact, but really). Thus, "[[Yesterday's Enterprise]]" is in my opinion what comes closest to my idea of a nearly-perfect episode page, though the summery could be breaken down in act-sections for clearity. "[[Trials and Tribble-ations]]" hardly fulfills any of my criteria, and thus I oppose this nomination. [[User:Ottens|Ottens]] 12:33, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)
**There's one in every crowd... [[User:Ben Sisqo|Ben Sisqo]] 16:22, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)
***There's one ''what'' in every crowd? [[User:Ottens|Ottens]] 16:29, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)
****Yeah, in any given group of people theres always someone who will make a stink about something even after it's been decided upon. [[User:Ben Sisqo|Ben Sisqo]] 16:33, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)
***What exactly has been decided upon? I wasn't aware there had been a change in policy? [[User:Ottens|Ottens]] 16:48, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. I recently watched the episode, and I copyedited this article thinking I could add to the summary, but I found myself quite liking its compact nature. It doesn't skip anything (I added some minor details) and is probably a better summary than Yesterday's Enterprise in my opinion. That said, Ben Sisqo doesn't know what he's talking about. '''Nothing''' has been agreed upon, which is why we have so much trouble with this issue in the first place. --[[User:Schrei|Schrei]] 17:44, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)
*<strike>'''Oppose'''. Whilst I heartily disagree with Ottens' view of summary detail, I do think more information as I mentioned above is necessary. This has nothing about how they did the merging of the two episodes, and it's hard to believe such a memorable episode would have no such information available. [[User:Makon|Makon]] 00:46, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)</strike>
**'''Comment'''. I've added '''''a lot''''' of information to the page, and I think everyone will agree that it's more or less complete now unless I missed very minor things. My above support vote was mostly based on the length issue because I knew the background info was available and hadn't added it yet, but now there's no reason this can't be featured. --[[User:Schrei|Schrei]] 03:05, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)
***Wow. I take it back, so my original vote stands. Nicely done! Surely Ottens will change his mind as well once he sees this. [[User:Makon|Makon]] 04:46, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)
*My point was its obvious we dont want uberlong summaries and this one is fine. [[User:Ben Sisqo|Ben Sisqo]] 09:06, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)
*I'm withdrawing my oppose. Although there may be a few little things that could be improved, I think it's quite up to Featured Article-status now. Good work, Schrei! [[User:Ottens|Ottens]] 14:51, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)
*'''Support''' [[User:1985|1985]] 15:26, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. I don't usually go for episodes as Featured Articles but this one is just what featured eps should be, IMO. Summary of manageable/readable length, and extensive information on production, background, etc. This is what The Cage should be. [[User:Logan 5|Logan 5]] 17:07, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)
==Nominations with objections==
==Nominations with objections==

Revision as of 06:27, 2 October 2005


Nominations without objections

The Collaborator

  • Support. Hopefully this isnt like the occupation article where someone was working on it but not ready. I was looking for an article to spruce up and maybe make featured, but this one's already there and with no red links in the entire article! Ben Sisqo 23:12, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Comment - neither red links nor the size of an article should matter to the nomination process. It's the quality of the writing that matters. That's why TATV should be featured and why Grathon Tolar is already featured - it doesn't matter that it's quite a small article. --Defiant | Talk 02:02, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • I never said I nominated it because of its length. I nominated it because it's a good article... TATV is a good article just way too long. And the red links part may not be an official factor but it does look better without them. Ben Sisqo 03:44, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. It's a pretty good article, with a well-balanced episode summary, well-chosen images and significant background information. To Ben Sisqo, though, I would like to say: if you come across an article that you think is up to Featured Article-status, then please do nominate it, but please don't go on the "look-out" for articles to nominate merely for the sport of it ;-) Ottens 10:02, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. This article was a victim of overzealous nominations (see nominations archive), much like I think the episode is often a victim of people overlooking DS9's second season, which had some great episodes. Anyway, after the last nomination, I made a conscious effort to include as much background info as possible, so I think it's on par this time. --Schrei 17:00, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose/Neutral If I can hedge my vote like that I'd like to. I don't want to be the only one standing in the way of rewarding the hard work here but the summary is overly-written, and some of the info in "Significance" is either total speculation, opinion, or just a stretch to be included. If I'm the only oppose I'll change this to neutral but right now this isn't the same quality as Trials and Tribble-ations, or what The Cage or Emissary could be. Logan 5 20:28, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. I don't think there's anything wrong with saying so when you have an objection. Have you heard of the Milgram experiments? Put that phrase into a search engine and you will see why free speech is important. I have however removed the thematic explanation from Sisqo and whoever added the part about Opaka's seclusion being tied to Kendra Valley. Makon 20:50, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • It's not that I don't want to oppose articles, but there's been so much debate on episode articles lately and my opposition is based on length of summary (subjective and no hard policy on it yet) and some nitpicks in the background. Consequently it's a weak oppose.... Logan 5 20:55, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, I was going to say that I agree this might not be the best candidate by our emerging unofficial background criterion for episode articles... But if it's just about the length of the summary, well, at least you're willing to compromise? I don't know why nobody spoke up when people approved all those Defiant-class episode pages. --Schrei 23:45, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • No, you can't, please choose. If you oppose you're "blocking" the nomination for the moment, if you don't you don't. What is it that you want? We cant be the ones to choose for you. :) -- Cid Highwind 17:41, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • If I can't hedge I'll go neutral, with the comments above. I'm not going to oppose it solely for being over-written (which it is IMO), and I don't think there are obvious non-inclusions the way there are for The Cage or FBTS which would definitely be justificatiton for opposing without reservations. Logan 5 18:54, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - It drives me insane to think that some people can't follow the rules/guidelines and vote on these nominations based on the quality of the actual articles. Ignore the size of paragraphs or articles and just analyse the actual writing! --Defiant | Talk 01:27, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • To which I can only reply that some people need to realize that over-writing and excessive length does affect the quality of the writing, and hence my vote. I know you're big on writing every single action that's on the screen but to me that's not the hallmark of well-written. Logan 5 03:27, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • To which I say that for every person like you there is a person like Defiant, for every Ben Sisqo there is an Ottens, and for every pair of opposing view points there is someone like me caught in the middle and someone like that one person who said during Crossover's nomination that he made a stink about the number of episodes and yet never opposed them based on his prefrences. There is no way to please everyone at once, which is why this article (which you feel is over written) and Tribblations (which Ottens felt was under written) are both eligible. --Makon 05:44, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)
        • Huh? I was just trying to point out that I was following the guidelines by voting against an article I don't consider well written. Defiant implied I wasn't doing that because I have different standards for well written. Logan 5 16:08, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)
          • I think that was Makon's point. You consider it well written for being to the point and compact, Defiant considers it well written for being thorough, and there are plenty who agree with both of you. I think Ottens' reservations about Trials and Tribble-ations and yours about this article are a perfect example of why length is not part of the criteria for FA status. --Schrei 21:16, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Nominations with objections


Support. If Grathon Tolar can be featured, so can this dude. Vedek Dukat 21:01, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • Oppose. I hardly believe this article qualifies as an example of "Memory Alpha's community work". While the article may be "complete" in the sense that it includes all the information available on the subject, that doesn't necessarily mean it *must* be a featured article. Ottens 21:19, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment At least it's not an episode or a user page... 1985 09:45, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment It's not like we need any (more) Featured Articles. I don't think the subject of an article should be considered when nominated for FA-status, but rather the content of it. Ottens 14:11, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Far Beyond the Stars

  • Well, I think someone added the nomination notice but forgot to add the nomination, so I'm doing it for them and supporting it. Vedek Dukat 02:32, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Yes, that was me... Sorry about that, I did the same thing with a delete template that later turned out to be the wrong template and placed on an article that shouldn't be deleted. I can't get anything right tonight. :oP Ben Sisqo 04:32, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The background info is missing key information on a lot of the characters and other relevant info. Namely, that Nana Visitor's character is a stand in for DC Fontana. There's also no mention of the classic science fiction writers that are mentioned in the episode. And the summary could use some copy-editing for links and style. Logan 5 05:14, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. I agree that this needs a peer review and copyediting. However, this has a lot of potential as far as background information. Some stuff (like the KC Hunter part) is already on other pages and just needs to be consolidated, but like Logan said, other information probably needs to be added. This will also give me a chance to fix something that's always bugged me: All that annoying "This person was the only one to do this and that and the other person didn't appear in this episode" Jeopardy info needs to be in a trivia section. :P --Schrei 06:05, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)

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