Articles nominated for removal

Grathon Tolar

Someone said that Solbor, an article of nearly identical length, one paragraph difference, is not fit because the character is not feature material. How is this featured then? It's not right to have this in the same category as Benjamin Sisko. Makon 04:54, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Yesterday's Enterprise

"Yesterday's Enterprise
A shorter article than most of the other featured articles, especially considering it is an episode article. --Defiant | Talk 02:15, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • Unsurprisingly, oppose. I have drastically expanded the Background Information section to detail the rather unique creation of this episode, and added some more images to the article. In addition, I dislike that episode summaries must now contain a blow-by-blow account of every single movement and gesture that is seen on screen. This is by no means a slight on your work, amongst others, Defiant, but such is really antithetical to the point of a summary, which is to distill the information presented, not catalog it verbatim. As such, this summary is concise, detailed, and complete. Just because it's shorter doesn't necessarily mean it's worse. -- Michael Warren | Talk 14:48, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • Oppose I'm not a fan of the Act 1/2/3 etc sections of many episode summaries. This summary is succinct and to the point. Tough Little Ship 14:52, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm going to say oppose as well because, although I do like the five-act system, this article currently has such a wealth of information that I couldn't justify removing it. I also agree about the novelizations (and I mean that word as a compliment, because I think they're very well written) being overboard on episode summaries. --Schrei 20:10, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This article is very well written, and contains thouroughly researched background information. Jaz 21:05, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As DH said, "Just because it's shorter doesn't necessarily mean it's worse". The background information on the episode is superb and I think it'd be a shame to remove the article's featured status.--Scimitar 23:52, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's a wonderful article. IMHO, it should be held up as an example of what the episode pages should be like. The deep background information is fascinating and the story synopsis is well written. I too dislike the Act 1/2/3 sections in some other episode pages. Weyoun 20:07, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Definitely oppose. The summary is still a little too long for my personal tastes, but the background and production info is excellent and shows the potential for episode FAs. Logan 5 20:59, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't think the summery is "too long" in any way, neither is it too "short". Along with the recently added background material, I, in fact, think this page is what an episode Featured Article should look like. Ottens 16:56, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)


This article may be complete, but I don't think it really qualifies as "one of MA's best written articles", which is, in my opinion, the definition of a "featured article". Most of it reads like a simple list of unrelated facts. -- Cid Highwind 12:07, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)
I definitely agree with this, and frankly, feel the same way about the Andorian article. The relatively scant content on the Bolian page, most of it anectdotal, hardly makes it a FA in my opinion. And I think both it and the Andorian article get their nominations not really because of the depth or breadth of the content that I believe make FA's stand out, but because people like these species. The Andorian article even had several things in it that I don't believe were supported by canon and yet it made the FA list. Logan 5 13:46, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)
I think if we are going to remove them for this reason we should also removed Tellarite, Tholian and Breen. Actually, really all of the species besides the "regs", because all of their articles are built up the same way, complied list of canon references. Jaf 14:06, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)Jaf
I disagree slightly with this. I feel like all those species articles are somehow more robust, with more indepth material. I mean, at least they have all been featured in episodes that revealed numerous facts about them, especially the Breen and Tellarites. Whereas Bolians have never been a major focus of even one episode I can think of and almost all the references are from one or two lines of dialogue in unrelated eps. I suppose I'd have to support keeping the Andorians by this logic, and I'm fine with that. I also acknowledge that it's a personal bias as species with far more content like the Ferengi don't get accepted and yet these do despite the paucity of info on them. Logan 5 14:22, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Is there anything more to say about them? If yes - remove it, if not - oppose. The way how it is said is maybe a reason for editing, but not for removal. --Porthos 15:31, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Now we see what happens when no one participates in their God-given right to vote around here. :) The question is, if you don't like it, what are your suggestions to fix it? Clearly if someone has reservations about the status of article they must also have resolutions on how to resolve it. Obviously no one here can begin to repair it without knowing where to begin. Additionally, the fact of the matter is, all we know about the Bolians, Andorians, Breen, Tellarites, Tholians, Gorn, Benzites is a bunch of unrelated facts. That really doesn't give one much to work with -- and keeping that fact in mind, these articles handle that quite well. --Alan del Beccio 18:20, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I think a lot of what makes them such good articles is the fact that we had so little to work with in the first place. It makes for a nice challange, I vote oppose. Jaf 19:33, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)Jaf

RE:Gvsualan: It's pretty simple. As I wrote, the article is just a list of unrelated facts, each mentioned in a separate paragraph. This is definitely not what I would call "well-written" (which is part of the definition of "featured articles"). The solution? Rewrite it to make it a more coherent reading. If this is not possible because all we know about Bolians are those incoherent factoids - tough luck, in that case the article shouldn't have become "featured" in the first place. -- Cid Highwind 21:27, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Despite the fact everyone here seems to be a critic and no one a doer, I should probably note that I did fumble around with the article a few days back, as it seems I am the only one that somewhat cares about repairing page. I should also mention again, that now we see what happens when no one participates in their God-given right to vote around here. It might also help if the nominator, attempts to contribute on some level to the pages enhancement, we all might be able to help bring it up to par. Thanks. --Alan del Beccio 20:24, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Well, I've re-read the article and looked for ways to improve it and honestly I'm not sure how. So much of what's there is unrelated that I can't see how re-writing will make it smoother. In fact, even the relation of some of the material to the headings is loose at best, in my opinion. So I'd like to offer suggestions, or put this in the new PeerReview category, but in the end I'm lead back to my original position: I just don't think there is enough here to turn this into a fully fleshed FA on par with the other species articles. It's complete, sure, but doesn't go much beyond that. Logan 5 21:32, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)
I've also read it, and it's seems to be complete. I don't see anything wrong with the article, just that some say it could use more info (being complete, I'm curious what the battle plan is with that...) so I oppose de-FA'd. Or at least move it to peer review. - AJHalliwell 23:13, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need for hostilities. The reason for my "non-contribution" is that, frankly, I don't know how to edit that article so that it deserves the FA status it already has for whatever reasons. If all we know about Bolians are those loosely related tidbits, it simply doesn't deserve that status IMO. Featured articles shouldn't simply be complete (as in "listing all known facts"), they should be comprehensive, interesting to read etc. Alan, since this is the second time you are talking about the "god-given right to vote" - apparently, I didn't catch that nomination. If I had, I would have objected at that time, not now, after the fact. That doesn't mean that I don't have the right to voice my concerns now, this is what we have this page for. Seeing that it is nearly impossible to remove FA status from even such an article, you can be sure that I will try to be more active in the nomination process in the future. -- Cid Highwind 23:33, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • Addressing my attempts to rally support to fix the article by saying "tough luck" really doesn't seem to be an appropriate choice of words from somebody who wishes to contribute. As you can see, I've already attempted to pull it together, and have once again, clearly made some changes that I believe have tied many (not all, but many) related points together. I've also thrown some ideas in there that I can't seem to work out that someone else may be able to tweak, such as the fact that Bolians are always offering, lets say, "free advice"-"know-it-all"-"outspoken"-type personality traits we've commonly seen in Chell, Vadosia, Mot, and Hars Adislo. I'm also pretty sure that with some ad lib or fluff the Culture section can also be brought together more yet. You guys give up to easily. --Alan del Beccio 03:09, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+