(→‎[[James Moriarty (hologram)]]: -remove it from this page?)
(→‎Nominations with objections: -removed and archieved James Moriarty (hologram). did not make it.)
Line 4: Line 4:
==Nominations with objections==
==Nominations with objections==
===[[James Moriarty (hologram)]]===
In my opinion, a well written and structured article about the character. Gives a good insight as to his creation, and his want to leave the holodeck. I think it is worth FA status --[[User:Nmajmani|Nmajmani]] 19:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
*I agree. [[User:31dot|31dot]] 01:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
**'''Comment''': I'm assuming that's a vote for "support," then? ;) --[[User:Shran|From Andoria with Love]] 08:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
::Yes, it is. :) Upon rereading, I would question as to whether or not we know for certain that he was the 'first sentient hologram known to Starfleet'. Created by, perhaps, but who's to say another ship didn't encounter an alien sentient hologram?[[User:31dot|31dot]] 22:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
:::Although there is room for speculation in that manner, I think it's ben pretty well established that he was the first sentient one. Don't go by me completely though. I have only seen TOS, TNG, and about half of DS9, VOY, and ENT. So there are things I could have missed. :) --[[User:Nmajmani|Nmajmani]] 23:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
*'''Neutral'''. It's certainly complete and thorough but the writing is a little plodding and I think it might benefit from having better organization, even headings, a la [[Tekeny Ghemor]]. [[User:Logan 5|Logan 5]] 15:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I added subheadings and another background note. -[[User:Nmajmani|Nmajmani]] 21:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
*'''Neutral'''. It's good, certainly, but I don't see why it isn't "James Moriarty (Hologram)" with a separate page for the fictional character alone. In a sense, the original, fictional Moriarty and the later, sentient one are completely separate individuals, so why is there one page encompassing both. If Will and Thomas Riker can get separate pages... Has this point been raised before and missed by myself? --[[User:Jayunderscorezero|Jayunderscorezero]] 19:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': The "(hologram)" thing is a great point, J_0. I wondered that myself some time ago, but never did anything about it. Disregarding that, as it stands right now the article has its problems. It's mildly linked (I would like more links), sectioned off lightly, and wierdly (no intro paragraph? What the heck is that?!... also, no sub-sections). If it truely is to be a combination of the two "separate" Moriarty's, it doesn't include full information provided. In fact, some of the info in the Background section was in fact mentioned in the episode ({{e|Elementary, Dear Data}}). Additionally, the overall read seems more like episode summaries, rather than focusing just on the character (to be fair, all statements are at least partially related to his storyline). I've seen better featured articles for lesser-seen characters, and in my opinion, this article needs major re-working to be along those lines.--[[User:Tim Thomason|Tim Thomason]] 00:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
:OK. I think I'll split the article into Moriarty and Moriarty (hologram). Also, I'll adress your concerns during the split. --[[User:Nmajmani|Nmajmani]] 17:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
::'''Comment''': I would not split up the article. I as far as I am concerned there is only one Moriarty, period. That he started out as a hologram and later on became sentient makes no difference. Being a hologram is his personal history. It would be the same as creating different articles about [[Jean-Luc Picard]] age 10, age 25 etc... Just incorperate both, being a hologram and a sentient being, into one article is the best way to go. -- [[User:Q|Q]] 17:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
:::Just to clarify my statement, I wasn't making a hologram/sentient being divide, after all, the sentient Moriarty is ''still'' a hologram of sorts, I was making a disctinction between the hologram and the fictional character from the original novels, which are mentioned in canon. The Moriarty from the novels certainly never went on to become a sentient being. --[[User:Jayunderscorezero|Jayunderscorezero]] 21:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
:::: Aha, thanks for the clarification :) Even so, I think the novell Moriarty, the one thought up by Conan Doyle, and reffered to in the episodes does not need a seperate article. A footnote should suffice but that's my POV -- [[User:Q|Q]] 21:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
*'''Request to Suspend''' I want to split this article into the James Moriarty book character and James Moriarty hologram. Reference was made to the original character, and I wish to suspend voting, or close voting until the split has been properly made. Both characters deserve their respective pages. Please either deny or confirm suspension --[[User:Nmajmani|Nmajmani]] 23:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
:: You could move the whole voting process to [[Memory Alpha:Nominations_for_featured_articles/Archive|Nominations Archive]] and remove the <nowiki>{{fac}}</nowiki> from the article. When the objections are not resolved this would happen anyway. As for the splitup. I don't see why as, as far as I know, there were only two episodes which mentioned Moriarty. Besides that, the hologram is derived from the book character so why seperate the two. -- [[User:Q|Q]] 08:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
:::The hologram was originally nothing more than a book character, and that book character still existed as a seperate entity. He can be called in a regular program. But then a sentient entity seperate of the character was created. It does not matter if the book character only appeared in one episode, but he was referenced to. I mean, we have a Holmes and Watson article, even though both were played by Data and Geordi. I will do the split today. This article will be for the 'James Moriarty (hologram)' article. I ask an administrator to archive it on the appropriate page, and then in a week or so, I will re-nominate, after adressing the issues above. --[[User:Nmajmani|Nmajmani]] 11:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
*I just split the article. I have re-likned this nomination to the page for the sentient hologram. --[[User:Nmajmani|Nmajmani]] 15:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
*'''Agree''' --[[User:LtCmdr-Vulcan | Örlogskapten]]... [[User talk:LtCmdr-Vulcan | Channel Open]]... 17:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. I agree with [[User:Logan 5]]. At the risk of being blunt, it's simply dull and plodding. It's not much more than a rehash of the plot synopses already available on the episode pages. I think that the main flaw of the article is that it's got the balance of information reversed. We need less about the minute-by-minute details of his creation and existence, and more about the philosophical ramifications of his existence. I'd also wonder whether the assertion that he's the first sentient hologram are correct, The EMH wasn't created overnight. Without reviewing the episodes involving [[Louis Zimmerman]], I would kinda think it's at least implied he's been working on providing sentience to holograms for most of his career. This might be the first one ''seen'' in ''Star Trek'', but I'd think it's not the first one ''implied''. I don't think you can entirely ignore the similarities between Moriarty and the holograms of the [[recreation room]] in {{TAS|The Practical Joker}}. Although non-humanoid, they were behaving in an intelligent way. Now, you could say that in that episode it was the computer that was sentient, but there's not much practical distinction between a computer and a hologram. I personally think that [[Cyrus Redblock]], ''et al'', gain at least a measure of sentience by understanding who and what they are in {{TNG|The Big Goodbye}}, an episode that predates the Moriarty hologram's first appearance. [[Minuet]], too, displayed a sentient understanding of her existence prior to Moriarty. This article should make mention of at least both these references (and possibly "Joker" as well), because there's a kinda progression going on in the "holo-narrative" from first instance to baby steps to Moriarty to the EMH. He is an intermediate step in the "holo-evolution" that should be demonstrated to place him into better context. '''[[User:CzechOut|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Czech</span><span style="background:red;color:white">Out</span>]]''' [[User talk:CzechOut|☎]] | [[Special:Contributions/CzechOut|<font size="+1">✍</font>]] 00:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
*it may just be me, but I think that this page is not good enough for feature-status, because of all the ''oppose'' above.Or am I wrong?Shall we not remove it from here and let the contributors re-nominate it later?--[[User: Rom Ulan|<span style="background:darkgreen;color:white">Rom Ulan</span>]]<sup>[[user talk: Rom Ulan|<font color="#0000FF">Hail</font>]]</sup> 23:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
===[[Sixth UK Story Arc]]===
===[[Sixth UK Story Arc]]===
'''Self-nominate'''. I created this article and put some work into it, and I feel that it is above average. Thoughts? -- [[User:Connor Cabal|Connor Cabal]] 14:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
'''Self-nominate'''. I created this article and put some work into it, and I feel that it is above average. Thoughts? -- [[User:Connor Cabal|Connor Cabal]] 14:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:10, 2 December 2007


Nominations without objections

Nominations with objections

Sixth UK Story Arc

Self-nominate. I created this article and put some work into it, and I feel that it is above average. Thoughts? -- Connor Cabal 14:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Agree. I don't like the article, it's about a boring thing. But it is written good, so by reaching beyond what I think about the subject, it is a good article. - Örlogskapten. Qapl'a! 10:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd like to withdraw my nomination for this article to have featured status. As I sort through all of the UK stories, I am continually finding new ways to improve the articles. There is a lot more I'd now like to do with this one, and I may resubmit it at some point in the future after a peer review. -- Connor Cabal 21:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.