Reconfirmations without objections
I think this is a good one to start with. The article was originally made a FA in April 2005. In March/April 2011, there was an attempt to remove this article, but there was no consensus (2 for, 2 against). The comments of TrekFan and Defiant in that latter discussion suggest that there may be some spelling, grammar and format issues remaining. If these objections remain, they should be resolved if we want to reconfirm this article. (Other objections raised at the removal attempt, such as background citations and page numbers, were resolved)
- Support reconfirmation. - Archduk3 01:26, December 1, 2011 (UTC)
- Support reconfirmation. I fixed up the only grammar issues I could find.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 01:43, December 1, 2011 (UTC)
- Support. --31dot 02:30, December 1, 2011 (UTC)
- Support.--Sennim 05:58, December 2, 2011 (UTC)
- Supprt. Tom 17:13, December 2, 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: Please provide a link to the current main page summary (if it exists) - according to new FA policy, that one should be written during the nomination period, so it should exist for a renomination. Conditional oppose if that summary does not exist, or doesn't match the current article. -- Cid Highwind 21:46, December 4, 2011 (UTC)
- See Template:FA/The Way of the Warrior (episode). - Archduk3 22:57, December 4, 2011 (UTC)
- I think the last paragraph in the blurb should be shortened to just "Realizing something must be done before the situation escalates out of control, Sisko notifies Starfleet Command and Lieutenant Commander Worf is dispatched to the station. Sisko gives Worf an assignment – find out what the Klingons are up to." since the blurb is a bit on the long side. - Archduk3 01:33, December 6, 2011 (UTC)
- Implemented that suggested change - the blurb is still a little too long for my taste (perhaps a sentence or two could be trimmed), but at least it shouldn't get longer than what it is now. -- Cid Highwind 13:23, December 9, 2011 (UTC)
Oppose, after having read through the article again. For one, there's a huge discrepancy between the "Memorable Quotes" section of this article and MA:QUOTE: The guideline states that six would be a good upper limit - this episode is important and feature length but still, 20 quotes seems excessive. Some of them aren't memorable at all (quoting whole scenes or needing context to be understood), or should probably be placed somewhere else (Worf's Enterprise quote, for example, has nothing to do with the content of this episode), and the whole list apparently isn't sorted chronologically, either (the last-but-one quote is the final dialogue of the episode - not sure about the rest). Then, i think that parts of the background section would be more appropriate for the DS9 Season 4 article. Changes to the opening sequence, for example, weren't done for this episode specifically, but were a part of general "season 4 changes". The same is true for several of the "personnel changes" - which either belong on the season or even on the actor/character articles instead. -- Cid Highwind 13:53, December 9, 2011 (UTC)
Comment - I shortened it down to 10 quotes, and sorted them chronologically. Since its a feature length episode, I hope this is acceptable. As for the latter: How about we move that kind of stuff to Season 4, and have a note along the lines of "Season 4 introduced several changes to the show. These included a new title sequence, new credits, and promotions for several characters. For more information, please see DS9 Season 4." ?–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 00:48, December 10, 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: That doesn't really say anything about this specific episode, though. I'd opt for the first suggested sentence to be something more along the lines of, "Some aspects of this episode were changes introduced to the show in its fourth season." --Defiant 03:20, December 10, 2011 (UTC)
- I prefer the phrase Cleanse suggested. The other suggestion is an awkward construction just to bring "this episode" instead of "season 4" into the active position of the sentence. This would be OK if this were a huge section of text, but unnecessary if it is basically a pointer to a different article. -- Cid Highwind 11:31, December 10, 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I did say "something along the lines of," aware that the particular sentence I suggested is an awkward one. I just think we should make what is written more relevant than Cleanse's version, while also being less clunky than my own. However, achieving those two goals may be too idealistic. Anyway, since my last post here, I've come to the opinion that much of the info should (if I'm not mistaken) actually be on the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine page rather than the Season 4 one, for the same reason as it's being moved from this article; the changes, IIRC, remained in the rest of the show, while only being introduced here. --Defiant 13:04, December 10, 2011 (UTC)
- I checked the quotes section again, and while not all of them seem to be that memorable to me, the changes are sufficient for me. I'm no longer objecting in that regard. -- Cid Highwind 20:39, December 10, 2011 (UTC)
I have moved the information to DS9 Season 4, as Cid suggested, as I think that's the best place. Season 4 is the subject of the notes, so it makes the most sense there. I wouldn't object to some of them also being in the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine article, if Defiant wants to do so. But any further discussion about placement should be brought up elsewhere, since the notes are no longer in the article, and thus not relevant to whether this article should be a FA.
Anyway, I hope these changes to "The Way of the Warrior" are sufficient to resolve the outstanding objections. Any further suggestions or refinements are welcome. –Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 09:43, December 13, 2011 (UTC)
- I think the remaining section that was renamed to "Introduction of Worf" needs to be checked, too. It is only superficially related to this episode, more to the Worf character in general, and I suggest that only the first two sentences of bullet point #2 remain on this article, while the rest of #2, as well as #1 and #3 completely gets moved to Worf. -- Cid Highwind 10:21, December 13, 2011 (UTC)
I moved the first two sentences of what was bullet #2 to "Continuity". The remainder of #2 fits in nicely on Worf. #1 and #3 I just deleted because to be honest I don't think they add anything to what's already on the character article.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 10:38, December 13, 2011 (UTC)
- Oops, missed that one - sorry. I no longer oppose this. There has been an addition of a not-really-memorable quote (which I removed again), so this article should be checked after this reconfirmation went through. -- Cid Highwind 21:17, December 19, 2011 (UTC)
The Xindi incident or Xindi crisis was a series of events lasting nearly a year, from March 2153 to February 2154, involving the Enterprise NX-01's attempt to save Earth from destruction by the Xindi. It was a major turning point in the Temporal Cold War, and the incident also helped pave the way for the creation of the Coalition of Planets, a precursor to the Federation.
In March of 2153, acting on false intelligence provided by the Sphere Builders, the Xindi launched a surprise attack on Earth. The Xindi, who had been without a homeworld since the 2030s, had been informed by their protectors that, in the 26th century, Humanity was going to destroy their new homeworld.
Because of this, the Xindi-Primate scientist (and Xindi Council member) Degra had been working for several years on a superweapon capable of destroying Earth.
This FA has one of the most questionable histories of all the articles ever considered. Nominated in the same edit it was created, this article has been renamed several times, including during the nomination, and when opposed it was "renominated" in the same edit the original nomination was removed (See the FA history for links and such). That said, I think it's pretty much up to snuff by today's standards. - Archduk3 22:33, December 27, 2011 (UTC)
- Given its shaky FA history, can we agree to give this the "full nomination" treatment of needing 5 support vote from the start? I'm sure I could find something sensible to oppose this article for (like the strange article structure made apparent by the total lack of subsections), but I think it would be a good sign if this was handled that way without being forced by an oppose vote. -- Cid Highwind 12:59, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
I'm "adopting" this one from the list of problematic FA on the talk page. I have no current opinion about the article - other than the fact that it might be a little too short for nowadays standards and that its FA status might have had to do with the early demise of the actress at the time. -- Cid Highwind 13:12, December 28, 2011 (UTC)