(→‎Nominations with objections: Archiving Leslie and Eugenics Wars, these have been on the backburner for nearly 4 and 2 months, respectively...they failed.)
Line 4: Line 4:
==Nominations with objections==
==Nominations with objections==
=== [[Eugenics Wars]] ===
* I was amazed by this article! An unbelievably extensive resource regarding a subject not often touched upon in [[Star Trek|Trek]]; I was expecting a small page, possibly even a stub, but was extremely pleased to find all the information here, well written and presented. I'm quite impressed! (Obviously, it's not a self-nomination and I had no hand in creating this awesome page!) --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 22:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
*Looks good. Possible further additions might be an "Appearances" subsection and/or another relevant image (if such exists). Neither is absolutely necessary, though... '''Support'''. -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 17:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I have a couple of issues/questions before I can vote on this. First, there's at least one point in the article that uses an image as a direct reference. Is that standard MA style or should it reference the episode instead? Second, I do think an "Appearances" or "References" list would be good, and I also think that an Apocrypha section at least listing the numerous novels that reference this could be helpful. [[User:Logan 5|Logan 5]] 21:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
:* That production image is from the coinciding ep ref, but the reference is visual and best explained via the link. Im not sure I understand the need for an appearances section, as unlike the appearances section on the [[Galaxy class]] page, the Eugenics Wars was never shown, therefore never truely appeared. Additionally, I do not understand the need for a References section when all the references are incited in the article. --[[User:Gvsualan|Alan del Beccio]] 21:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': Looks good to me too. It would be nice, and/or interesting, to see if we could incorporate McCoy's line from {{TOS|The Omega Glory}}: "The infection resembles one developed by Earth during their bacteriological warfare experiments in the 1990s. Hard to believe we were once foolish enough to play around with that." While clearly it wasn't a Eugenics Wars reference, per se, it did apparently occur during the same time period, and undoubtedly had some sort of impact on Earth at that very time. Afterall, the article does contain the following, and somewhat equally unrelated reference from {{VOY|Future's End}}: "As the wars raged and many areas were devastated, others (including those of the United States of America) remained largely unaffected." Also perhaps include [[:Image:Stavos_Keniclius.jpg|this image]], as it was from that era as well, and quite frankly there isn't a whole lot of visual references to go with this article, otherwise. --[[User:Gvsualan|Alan del Beccio]] 03:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
* First let me apologies for being a killjoy, but I disagree. While the article does have merit with it's use of all 5 series, the ramped speculation on the bottom destroys the articles good intentions. The speculation is full of fan theories, based off nothing but hope. --[[User:TOSrules|TOSrules]] 09:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
* '''Comment''': I must disagree with the disagreement presented above... well, sort of. I really don't think the background hurts the article, it is merely trying to put the pieces of the puzzle together, as it were, by combining facts from various series to explain some apparent inconsistencies. That said, however, the speculation in that section ''may'' be a bit too much. For example, ''"Some fans have speculated that, since real life history does not support the existence of the Eugenics Wars, the Star Trek universe takes place in a parallel reality, in which case, conflicts with factual events would be moot."'' Is this really needed? Do we need to point out to fans what some fans think, or can we just allow them to make up their own mind? In any case, the background probably could use some polishing and tightening. I don't really think that should be enough to keep it from being featured, though, since the article, as a whole, looks pretty good to me. --[[User:Shran|From Andoria with Love]] 22:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
** Well I as I said I don't object to the article in theory, but I want to see the background section cleaned up. I see that is occurring. What I would like it to say is simply the conflicting data without having extensive theories trying to explain them. Background should only make us mindful of what different episodes and movies imply. Minor explanations can remain, like the 200 years from Space Seed being a bad estimate. Thank you for working on it. I didn't know where to start, but when it is boiled down I might try to restructure it. --[[User:TOSrules|TOSrules]] 05:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
* '''Oppose'''. Usually I support FA nominations, even of controversial articles, but this one doesn't seem well organized enough. It's too short, lacks depth, and seems to have too narrow a focus. It would work better if tied into the [[Augments]] article. --[[User:Sheliakcorp|Sheliakcorp]] <sup>[[User Talk:Sheliakcorp|<span style="color:#9900FF;">talk</span>]] </sup> 15:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
=== [[Leslie]] ===
This biography of the franchise's leading extra is suprisingly exhaustive and entertaining. It rivals the articles on [[James T. Kirk]] and [[Spock]], which may not be inappropriate since the character appeared in the [[Where No Man Has Gone Before|second TOS pilot]], and remained throughout the series run. He has even been through death and life, just as his more illustrious crewmates have done. (I had nothing to do with this article, but it is interesting to note that the bulk of the work has been done by unnamed archivists identified only by IP numbers.)
*'''Support'''. --[[User:GNDN|GNDN]] 17:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. [[User:Kyle C. Haight|Kyle C. Haight]] 13:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. There sure is a lot of good info here, and I want to see this as a FA, but as is, I suggest a peer review. There are a lot of one-sentence paragraphs that should be merged, as well as some other copyediting. Good suggestion GNDN, let's work on improving this article. -[[User:Humu­humu­nuku­nuku­āpuaʻa|Humu­humu­nuku­nuku­āpuaʻa]] 16:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
:*I'm new to this nomination business, but I do support -[[User:Humu­humu­nuku­nuku­āpuaʻa|Humu­humu­nuku­nuku­āpuaʻa's]] suggestion regarding [[Memory Alpha:Peer review|peer review]]. If we go this route, should the nomination be tabled (or de-listed)? In the alternative, could peer review be conducted concurrently? --[[User:GNDN|GNDN]] 02:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as is. I love how he has relationships with other background characters. Cracks me up. [[User:Jaf|Jaf]] 00:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)Jaf
*'''Support''' Very interesting article, lots of information. - [[User:Enzo Aquarius|Enzo Aquarius]] 15:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong support''' The length, breadth, and depth of this article are the definition of Memory Alpha at its best. It's so good, it makes other articles look bad by comparison. -- [[User:StAkAr Karnak|StAkAr Karnak]] 18:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support.''' I'm amazed and impressed with such a thorough, serious approach to an extra. --[[User:Sasoriza|Sasoriza]] 03:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as well. I thought the nomination policy had been revised a while back to include "consensus" votes so that one hold-out in the face of strong community support wouldn't hold up a nomination. I know I was the hold-out on a few occassions, and the one opposing the hold-out on some others. [[User:Logan 5|Logan 5]] 00:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
**'''Comment'''. I've already voted but it's time this nomination was resolved. I think there is definitely consensus on this article, but Humumu....'s objections seem to be concrete, fixable issues and not just a statement of preference. That said, I'm unclear as to the state of this nomination but it should be resolved one way or the other. [[User:Logan 5|Logan 5]] 04:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. I'm really impressed that the initial work i did on this has been fleshed out so comprehensively. i felt crazy when i originally made a list of his 50+ appearances with uniform notes, this is greatly improved, and it was a group effort involving reg. users and anons alike. -- [[User:Captainmike|Captain M.K.B.]] 09:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. It's quite well constructed for a minor character in Star Trek TOS. --[[User:Sheliakcorp|Sheliakcorp]] <sup>[[User Talk:Sheliakcorp|<span style="color:#9900FF;">talk</span>]] </sup> 18:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
:*'''Comment''': This thing has been up for nomination since late November and still has one opposition vote. This would generally mean that the nomination is deemed a failure, and the discussion archived (given our recently adopted stance that everyone agree, IIRC), but I haven't been following the peer review progress. Has the article been edited as per Humu­humu­nuku­nuku­āpuaʻa's suggestions? Does Humu­humu­nuku­nuku­āpuaʻa still oppose this article's nomination? Even so, do we still deem the nomination a failure? It ''does'' have overwhelming support, after all. --[[User:Shran|From Andoria with Love]] 22:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
::*'''Comment''' I still do oppose the article as a FA, as I feel it reads too haltingly; there are too many 2 sentence paragraphs that don't flow well that have never been addressed. I still recommend a Peer Review on this article, but not being too up on TOS and the character in general, I don't feel comfortable (or ambitious enough) to take on the task myself. That being said, I know I'm the one hold out, and wouldn't be angered if majority rules, despite my opinion that the article is not one of MA's best. -[[User:Humu­humu­nuku­nuku­āpuaʻa|Humu­humu­nuku­nuku­āpuaʻa]] ([[User talk:Humu­humu­nuku­nuku­āpuaʻa|talk]]) [[Image:Humuhumunukunukuapuaa.jpg|28px]] 21:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:19, 29 March 2007


Nominations without objections

Nominations with objections

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