Nominations without objections

Rene Auberjonois

Self-nomination (sort of) Possibly the first actor page to be nominated as a featured article, the page for our pal Odo is about as complete as it gets. I have throroughly rewritten and expanded the article to its present state. As you can see, it not only describes his roles on Trek, but also throroughly covers major his non-Trek credits, including those which also involved other Trek alumni. All biographical information is present, as well, and it also includes a Trivia section. I wish I could take credit for the nifty "Additional characters" montage, though. --From Andoria with Love 08:08, 6 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Prototype (episode)

Self-nominationI think having my stuff run alongside Defiant's has given me an inferiority complex, because they keep getting longer and longer. Only beat me by 10kb this time! Anyway, I think this is one of the best I've done. --Schrei 01:11, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)

  • Suppot Tobyk777 23:14, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Support --Scimitar 11:59, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment, is the teaser really in the correct POV? It does refer to the viewer, and the screen, even if it is sorta POV of 3947. - AJHalliwell 23:47, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • You know, I read Gv's comment on latinum and I think I just realized how pointless it is to go into play-by-play detail considering it's just a summary - most people have seen the episode, and those who haven't probably aren't looking for a novel. Anyway, I originally kept referring to the camera/3947 as "it" or "the object," but it sounded really awkward, so dunno if there's a way to fix this. --Schrei 00:40, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Nominations with objections


perfect in every way BajoranBrouhaha 09:06, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • Oppose. It's an extensive article but hardly perfect. I'd personally like to see a bit more on their culture. I don't think that the references are complete either.--Scimitar 00:57, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Yes I am oppsoing this one contrary to popular belief that I support everything. There is no list of appearances. The article has no link to the rules of Aquisition that I can find. The refrences are incomplete. There is no list of Ferangi, or at least a link to another aticle with a list. Tobyk777 02:11, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment - I think this should be removed, based on the fact it was nomiated by a blocked user. --Alan del Beccio 05:35, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • How can a blocked user nominate something? They're blocked, right?
        • Well, that would be because they were blocked after they nominated it because they turned out to be a vandal...also, please remember to sign your comments with --~~~~. Thanks, Alan del Beccio


  • A long and detailed list of all the uses of Latinum. I don't know how long this article has been on MA, but I was extremely impressed by it! --Defiant | Talk 14:48, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral. It's a very good article, and very well researched. I doubt, though, if it's really an example of "the best of Memory Alpha's community work". I don't know, but for some reason this article doesn't really fit with my idea of what an FA should be. As I have no valid reason to oppose, though, I do not. Ottens 22:25, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment, I would just like to add, that the fact that it is so thoroughly researched makes it a prime example, because that shows a lot of effort went into this, versus simply watching an episode and just sequentially writing what happened in it...where there is, in effect, no research taking place. With this article, however, there is a great deal of organization, cross referencing and so forth, which indicates a great deal of effort was made in compiling and constructing this article. --Alan del Beccio 22:38, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment This is a very good article, but in some places there are no links, even on text where the link would be obvious. Tobyk777 01:45, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • A few more Comments On the article's talk page, it says that the part about USD conversion rates was deleted. I think that this should be put back in. It's what gives people who read the article a way to see how much latnum is really worth. Also, about the issue on the talk page as to whether gold is valuable to Ferangi, i would say yes. In "Little Green Men" Quark agrees to take gold in compensaion for technology. But there are other items sources given which contrict this. This should be added to the contridctary info page on Ten foward. Tobyk777 22:56, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment, there's a part that says "Values to be evaluated", doesn't that mean it's not in fact complete? - AJHalliwell 23:12, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: nature decays but latinum lasts forever. BajoranBrouhaha 09:07, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • Can a quote of the rules be a reason to support? Tobyk777 02:14, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral I can't support this article until the part in the talk page that was deleted is put back. Without the comparison to US dollars there is no way for readers to acuratly visulize how much latnium is worth. Tobyk777 02:14, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't recall it ever being given a value to US dollars. --Alan del Beccio 05:35, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • Regardless of wheather it was given a precise value, the speculation in that section seems acurate, and really clears things up. Tobyk777 16:35, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)
        • I believe the usage of the words "speculation" and "seems acurate" in the same reference is a contradiction, sir. US dollars should not be mentioned whatsoever unless US dollars were so mentioned. That entire section was validly moved because it was clearly stated as "speculation", and has no confirmed basis in the Trek universe. --Alan del Beccio 17:23, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)
          • The factual basis for the section is non-existant, I know, but it's still a good section. It's the part of the article that really gives readers an idea of how much latnium is really worth. Tobyk777 01:11, 6 Sep 2005 (UTC)
            • Hardly. It's speculation. It doesn't belong here. Period. --Alan del Beccio 05:20, 6 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As impressive as the article is and as much as it taught me (I always wondered how they measure this stuff), I really don't think laundry lists should be featured. It's a great article, but it just coesn't come out at the reader. If there was some kind of substantive history or a story behind how latinum became a currency, I'd reconsider, but as it stands right now, this just isn't featured material. --Schrei 19:15, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • Besides, aside from the one vote (which was added by a vandal with a rationale I really don't think qualifies), this is turning into another Henry Starling - which it seemed like everyone had an opinion on but no one wanted to oppose because they seemed afraid someone would disagree with them. :P --Schrei 19:18, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I was actually going to oppose this as well because the article reads like a shopping list to me too, despite the effort that went into this article. It may have been researched thoroughly but IMHO it is ultimately unremarkable. I just wasn't sure if you'd consider that to be a valid reason.--Scimitar 23:02, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • In all honesty I think a well researched, thorough article is far more creditable than an episode summary. In fact, as feasable as it may be, do we really want 700 featured articles on episodes? I don't I would like to have some featured articles appear based on things that are more than mere a regurgatation of what I just watched, like a compilation on an individual, a object or an event. I personally would like to see a limitation on featured episodes and a rebound back into the way F/A were 6 months ago...based on people and things. --Alan del Beccio 05:20, 6 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.