Template:Farc
Articles nominated for removal
Please add new articles to the top of the list.
Romulan (March 5th)
Romulan - this is still lacking a lot of info from DS9 and ENT. At least I think so, can't really be sure because I have no idea where half of the info is coming from as very little is cited. Tyrant 17:05, 5 Mar 2005 (GMT)Tyrant
- Support; for precisely the same reasons. || THOR 17:42, 5 Mar 2005 (GMT)
Galaxy class (January 30th)
Galaxy class - an extensive rewrite was started and is still in progress. This rewrite is, in my opinion, completely justified to remove TNGTM speculation. As such, the article probably shouldn't have been nominated in the first place - it's "Featured article"-status should definitely be reconsidered now. I suggest this article as a "FA removal candidate" and think it should be re-suggested as a FA once the rewrite is complete. -- Cid Highwind 13:26, 2005 Jan 30 (CET)
- Support. The article has been drastically changed from its original form; the community definitely needs to reconsider whether or not it wants to keep it as a featured article at some point in the future. -- SmokeDetector47 22:06, 2005 Jan 30 (CET)
James T. Kirk (January 13th)
James T. Kirk, for one, the page has an "attention needed" notice. It needs a rewrite, some facts checked, a number of wiki-fixes and some additions made, especially from TOS - which is otherwise seriously overshadowed by Movie references. --Gvsualan 19:07, 13 Jan 2005 (CET)
- I agree. For some reason, the {{featured}} message is already missing on that article - and I think it can stay this way. No article that "needs attention" should be "featured". -- Cid Highwind 23:31, 2005 Jan 13 (CET)
- According to the log, I evidently removed it. To my knowledge I did it unintentionally, that or I mistook it as improperly belonging there because of the attention needed notice and removed it as an oversight prior to realizing it was legit. I will restore it in the meantime due to the fact that it is, at this point, already considered "featured" it should remain there, as long as it is under debate. --Gvsualan 23:42, 13 Jan 2005 (CET)
- Yes, that would be the proper procedure. Thanks. -- Cid Highwind 23:44, 2005 Jan 13 (CET)
- I vote we take the FA off for now. Tyrant 19:39, 30 Jan 2005 (CET)Tyrant
- The procedure has changed in the meantime, so I removed the message again and suggest to keep this discussion some more days (4-5?) to allow everyone to comment. -- Cid Highwind 22:06, 2005 Jan 30 (CET)
- I vote we take the FA off for now. Tyrant 19:39, 30 Jan 2005 (CET)Tyrant
- Yes, that would be the proper procedure. Thanks. -- Cid Highwind 23:44, 2005 Jan 13 (CET)
- According to the log, I evidently removed it. To my knowledge I did it unintentionally, that or I mistook it as improperly belonging there because of the attention needed notice and removed it as an oversight prior to realizing it was legit. I will restore it in the meantime due to the fact that it is, at this point, already considered "featured" it should remain there, as long as it is under debate. --Gvsualan 23:42, 13 Jan 2005 (CET)