Wikia

Memory Alpha

Changes: Memory Alpha:Featured article nominations

View source

Back to page

({{e|Melora}}: re)
({{e|Melora}}: archiving)
Line 2: Line 2:
 
==Nominations without objections==
 
==Nominations without objections==
 
==Nominations with objections==
 
==Nominations with objections==
==={{e|Melora}}===
 
'''Self-nomination''': Having worked on this article extensively over the past couple of months, I feel it is now ready for FA nomination. The summary is complete, I've added a few memorable quotes and I believe all sources of background information there are have been exhausted. There's also some nice production images that provide a little more insight into the creation of this episode. I also left it a little while to ensure no edit conflicts developed and the article became stable, and now I really do not think there is anything else that can be added to it. I hope everyone agrees :) --| [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Open a channel</span>]]</sup> 03:42, April 10, 2011 (UTC)
 
:'''Comment'''. [[MA:QUOTE|Quotes]] really shouldn't be more than a couple of lines, and three of the quotes have five lines and one has four.--[[User:31dot|31dot]] 17:56, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
 
I have removed the last 5-line quote and replaced it with a couple of 1-liners instead. As for the others, I don't think there's any real way they can be slimmed down as it's all quite memorable. It's not like they are particularly ''long'' 3/4-liners, though. They have quite snappy responses, if you're reading it back, for example the Quark/Odo one where the last two lines are a total of four words. That said, if you think it would be better without them or you think you can slim them down, go right ahead. --| [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Open a channel</span>]]</sup> 13:02, April 12, 2011 (UTC)
 
:I slimmed one down and removed a couple of others.--[[User:31dot|31dot]] 13:29, April 12, 2011 (UTC)
 
 
'''Comment''': A debate regarding the inclusion of websites that collate viewer ratings developed here, which can now be found [[Forum:Inclusion of websites that collate viewer ratings|here]] so as not to impede the FA nomination of "Melora." --| [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Open a channel</span>]]</sup> 21:57, April 16, 2011 (UTC)
 
 
*'''Support'''. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 22:22, April 16, 2011 (UTC)
 
*'''Oppose'''; the article is incomplete without the viewer statistics and the article's content is definitely under dispute. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 23:02, April 16, 2011 (UTC)
 
*<s>'''Oppose''' while content is under dispute(which I don't think should be included)--[[User:31dot|31dot]] 00:23, April 17, 2011 (UTC)</s>
 
*'''Support''' - this is an excellent article. The background information is comprehensive, well-written, and properly cited. It's also well-illustrated, which is always a plus. &ndash;[[User:Cleanse|Cleanse]] <small><sup>( [[User talk:Cleanse|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Cleanse|contribs]] )</sup></small> 00:54, April 17, 2011 (UTC)
 
'''Comment''': The content is not under dispute. I (the one who initially added it) removed it as a compromise, to allow this nomination to proceed. The separate discussion relates to the inclusion of said information as a general thing, not just for this article. If ''I'' have removed it then surely there is no dispute...unless you still think I am "gaming the system?" --| [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Open a channel</span>]]</sup> 09:49, April 17, 2011 (UTC)
 
::'''Comment''': As has been stated on [[Forum:Inclusion of websites that collate viewer ratings|the other page]], the least that should have been done when splitting this discussion was to acknowledge that ''two'' '''Opposing''' votes did appear, and for what reason (''inclusion of web/fan-votes''). -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 11:34, April 17, 2011 (UTC)
 
:It is still in dispute- the discussion is just not taking place here.--[[User:31dot|31dot]] 19:42, April 17, 2011 (UTC)
 
:::Agreed. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 20:35, April 17, 2011 (UTC)
 
*'''Support''' - Now that the disputed section has been removed to become an autonomous discussion, it has in my opinion no longer bearing on the rest of the article (whether or not to include viewer opinion/statistics now pertains to all articles) and is everything Cleanse says it is...-[[User:Sennim|Sennim]] 08:21, April 18, 2011 (UTC)
 
'''Comment''': With respect, we're voting on the article as it appears now. [[Forum:Inclusion of websites that collate viewer ratings|This discussion]] relates to the inclusion of the information in general. I don't see how the article itself is in dispute anymore. --| [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Open a channel</span>]]</sup> 11:23, April 18, 2011 (UTC)
 
:::Because I strongly believe the article is incomplete, without that info, but others clearly feel differently; hence, the article is in dispute. Get it?! --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 18:12, April 18, 2011 (UTC)
 
I do get it Defiant! I feel the same way, but it's not like the others are going to change their minds is it? --| [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Open a channel</span>]]</sup> 18:48, April 18, 2011 (UTC)
 
:::Maybe not. But, then again, neither am I! --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 19:21, April 18, 2011 (UTC)
 
::::"''...and that is why you fail''", or at least why this article will. Compromise, MA knows not your name. See you folks back here in two weeks. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 19:33, April 18, 2011 (UTC)
 
 
::'''Comment''': I know I'm just stating the obvious here, but: with several people opposing an episode article ''with'' fan ratings, and one person opposing an article ''without'' fan ratings, it is pretty clear that no episode article should ever become an FA again - and, although doing that right now would be "disruption to prove a point", existing episode FAs should eventually be listed for FA removal. Since this discussion has been cut in half, please follow the trail of blood to the discussion page where I will state my reasons for not backing off from this position. -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 19:58, April 18, 2011 (UTC)
 
*Changing my opinion to '''Neutral'''. I don't think the fan-based info in dispute will be included.--[[User:31dot|31dot]] 20:31, April 18, 2011 (UTC)
 
Come on, guys! How is the debate on the inclusion of the said information across ALL articles a valid point for opposition on THIS article now that the disputed content has been removed? It's like saying that we're all going to debate the color of page headings, and until we decide whether they should be yellow or green, no article is allowed to become an FA. This nomination process is about the article as it stands NOW (without the info). The debate relates to the inclusion on all articles on MA. If you're concerned I will readd the information after the article has passed, don't be. I'm not like that and I take offence if anyone thinks that I am after all of the beneficial edits I have made to the wiki. Please view the article as it appears NOW. I have put a lot of effort into this and for oppose votes because of a debate on one TINY piece of information is silly, in my opinion. --| [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Open a channel</span>]]</sup> 14:24, April 27, 2011 (UTC)
 
:I'm still neutral on this article's status,(I believe Defiant is the only oppose) but the article did originally include the information in dispute, and was only removed to, as you put it, "not impede the FA nomination". We shouldn't pretend that the larger debate has absolutely no bearing on this discussion since it arose from this discussion. If people want to change their votes because of removing the disputed info, that is fine, but it certainly plays a role.--[[User:31dot|31dot]] 14:33, April 27, 2011 (UTC)
 
I'm not saying it doesn't. I'm just saying it shouldn't be the only reason for an oppose vote. I removed the info because there was a clear majority against it and so we can discuss its ''general'' inclusion across the whole of MA, not just on this single article. The article which is up for nomination now, does not contain any (judging by previous comments) disputed content and it is a stable article. --| [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Open a channel</span>]]</sup> 15:48, April 27, 2011 (UTC)
 
::::Actually, since the discussion Defiant has chosen not to participate in since the split has stalled with the consensus being that fan website ratings should not be added, his vote here is void assuming that there aren't any further posts there. Not that this article has enough votes to be a FA anyway with the objection removed, and is unlikely to get enough votes because of this mess. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 18:39, April 27, 2011 (UTC)
 
 
::To be fair, that sub-discussion has been moved to another page exactly because "it should not play a role for ''this'' discussion" - so inactivity or non-participation ''there'' should not play a role ''here'', either. Defiant has last been active in this discussion on April 18, and I don't really see a proper way of "voiding" his and only his vote. Let's just archive this nomination as failed and tackle the inevitable next. -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 19:18, April 27, 2011 (UTC)
 
::(PS) - this discussion itself has already been inactive between April 18 and April 27, two days longer than the "7-day inactivity period" detailed in the policy. In addition to the lack of overall votes that Archduk pointed out, more reason to archive this. -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 19:38, April 27, 2011 (UTC)
 
 
::::[edit conflict] - It would be void since the removed information that makes the article "incomplete" is now not a permitted resource, and the vote was solely about the ''that'' discussion in the first place, since we're being fair. Voting here and not participating there is circumventing the whole reason for the split, regardless of the bungled way said split was executed. I do agree that this discussion is over though, and continuing is just pushing back the date this can be renominated. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 19:48, April 27, 2011 (UTC)
 

Revision as of 19:56, April 27, 2011

Template:FeatNom

Nominations without objections

Nominations with objections

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki