Nominations without objections

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 information. Using the class' MSD, episode information, 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 information can be added. - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 16:08, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Duras, son of Ja'rod

  • Self-nomination. I recently updated the photo in the article and was inspired to exapnd on the previously bare-bones article. (It didn't even mention him being a candidate to succeed K'mpec before). I think's it's just about as complete now as I can make it. --T smitts 02:12, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC)

IKS Rotarran

I think this article deserves strong consideration. It played a major role in DS9 with a colorful history. It's well written and appears to be complete with solid references and good links to other areas of MA (which for me personally makes it a valuable resource and article). Logan 5 19:03, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Nominations with objections


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. Coke 21:06, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • Support Tough Little Ship 09:57, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • CommentOppose only because I think that there are more characters, places, and things that could be FAs with a little community support instead of another episode summary. 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. --T smitts 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. - 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. 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 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. --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. --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. --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. --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. 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 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". Ben Sisqo 21:07, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • 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. Logan 5 20:53, 16 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... --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. 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. -- 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. --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. 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. --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. 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? --Schrei 15:10, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. - AJHalliwell 13:39, 17 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


I think this article has come a long way with a lot of work from different users. It's a good character, and a chance for at least one aspect of the Ferengi to be represented in the FA lists. I was the anon. user who originally added the structure to the article and since then a lot more has been done. Most major events are there, including his participation in several key events of the Dominion War, notably the The Siege of AR-558. All in all, I think it deserves consideration. Logan 5 02:27, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • it reads well, but i'm wondering because it links to The Siege of AR-558 as an event in the article. should there be a separate page called Siege of AR-558 for that? the link points to the episode page. Makon 04:03, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • I wondered about that myself. I think a short term solution would be to change the link to AR-558, as I'm not sure how an article on the event would differ too much from the content there. Logan 5 04:29, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Tobyk777 04:20, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment The format of this article is like a timeline; we definitly know enough about him to have it in the usual character format don't we? I know I'd personally like to see it that way. (ie: Beverly Crusher, William T. Riker, T'Pol) - AJHalliwell 02:39, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • I think that's a fair recommendation and I've made an effort to address it. If nothing else it organizes the content better and makes it easier for others to identify areas to improve. Logan 5 03:42, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Indeed, where's the section about his relationships with Jake, women, Sisko, and even the Klingons? Remember how they ignored him at first? -Coke 02:44, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • I've added quite a bit on his relationship with Jake, O'Brien, and Sisko. I think the info on the Klingons would be a good addition to the Life on DS9 section if someone wanted to make it. Logan 5 03:42, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • I've added a section on Martok, detailing his relationship with the Klingons.--Oshah 14:00, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The lack of information about Nog's relationship with Jake is the killer for this article. It would almost be like doing Will Riker's article without mentioning his relationship with Deanna Troi. I also think that his personal character development with making himself heard in front of the Klingons was pretty important too.--Scimitar 07:11, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose for same reasons stated by Scimitar. --From Andoria with Love 10:40, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • Please see above. Does the additional info on Jake, and it's having a dedicated section help this? Logan 5 03:42, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • That's more like it! I withdraw my objection.--Scimitar 23:43, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • I was initially sitting on neutral for this article, mostly due to the objections raised above. However, the work of Logan 5 and Q has made this article a worthy FA. For anyone who initially opposed the nomination, try giving it a second read. Many more improvements have been made to the article Support--Oshah 07:48, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • Support Jaf 15:21, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)Jaf
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.