Wikia

Memory Alpha

Talk:William Ross

37,494pages on
this wiki

Back to page

Revision as of 17:27, March 23, 2014 by Archduk3 (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

FA status Edit

Nomination (03 Mar - 23 Mar 2014, Failed) Edit

I would like to nominate the William Ross article for consideration as a featured article. I have done a considerable amount of work on this over recent weeks with regards to adding missing in-universe information and the addition of what I believe to be a comprehensive background section. Following this, I placed the article on a peer review which has since concluded and I now believe that it is a stable, complete and interesting article on one of Deep Space Nine's most memorable recurring characters. --| TrekFan Open a channel 09:22, March 3, 2014 (UTC)

  • Support, impressive re-write, though in-universe stuff is not quite my forte, it seems to be as complete as memory serves, also organization of article is top-notch...--Sennim (talk) 12:43, March 3, 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Sennim! --| TrekFan Open a channel 17:51, March 4, 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. I've also changed the blurb so it only contains a link to its article, which it didn't have before, as per the established format. - Archduk3 22:24, March 4, 2014 (UTC)
Comment, without changing my vote, there is one minor style format issue that I just remembered, Is it not customary to have the BG/Apocrypha sections of in-universe articles (which this one is) start with bulletpoints (each paragraph starting with *)? I remember one of the admins reminding me a few years back, that while this was not policy, it had become the most commonly used format..--Sennim (talk) 10:09, March 5, 2014 (UTC)

I believe that bullet points are the norm for episode summaries but in character articles and the like, we use paragraphs. I too used to use bullet points, but all my edits kept getting reverted by Sulfur with edit summaries along the lines of "use paragraphs". --| TrekFan Open a channel 10:20, March 5, 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that was it, episode summaries, I remember now--Sennim (talk) 11:54, March 5, 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Very informative article I have to say. Looks like you've covered all the bases. Good job! StalwartUK 10:46, March 5, 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Stalwart! I appreciate your vote. --| TrekFan Open a channel 13:17, March 5, 2014 (UTC)

Any more votes/comments on this nomination? --| TrekFan Open a channel 14:55, March 8, 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. A good article which covers all information as far as I remember. An example of good work and featured article status deserving. Tom (talk) 15:25, March 8, 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Tom! --| TrekFan Open a channel 14:33, March 9, 2014 (UTC)

Would anybody else like to cast a vote? --| TrekFan Open a channel 15:42, March 12, 2014 (UTC)

Any final votes ? --| TrekFan Open a channel 20:21, March 18, 2014 (UTC)

Comment, Hasn't this passed? If memory serves five pro-votes are required; I count four plus your nomination, which I thought counts as pro-vote, making it five--Sennim (talk) 07:55, March 19, 2014 (UTC)
This is a self nomination, allbeit unmarked as such, so to pass it needs five support votes not including the nomination itself. - Archduk3 11:41, March 19, 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I stand corrected;)--Sennim (talk) 13:35, March 19, 2014 (UTC)

ContentEdit

Wow! That is a lot of info crammed in a short page. Is there some kind of limit? If this page cold be elaborated a bit more, it would make a good featured article. -- Redge | Talk 17:45, 12 Aug 2004 (CEST)

KhitomerEdit

In When It Rains... Admiral Ross says he met Gowron at Khitomer. As Gowron was said to be a political outsider before becoming Chancellor it seems unlikely he was at the second Khitomer conference, which have no set date, could there have been another conference on Khitomer in 2373 after the Federation and the Klingon empire became allies again?-Rebelstrike2005 23:55, 12 Feb 2005 (GMT)

Why would there need to be another Khitomer Conference? Ross and Gowron could have met there for any number of reasons. And also, why assume that the Second Khitomer Accords emerged from a second conference? -- Michael Warren | Talk 23:58, 12 Feb 2005 (GMT)

Middle initialEdit

Where was his middle initial being "J" stated? -- Ben Sisko 04:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

"From Starfleet Headquarters, Office of the Admiralty, to Captain Benjamin L. Sisko. As of this date, you are requested and required to take command of U.S.S. Sao Paulo. Signed, Vice Admiral William J. Ross, Stardate 52861.3."
"The Dogs of War". --Alan 03:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

BellerophonEdit

Is there any canon information that this was his flagship? Or was it just a transport (presumably chosen for it's fast speed and decent combat ability, whilst not large enough to really spook the Romulans) 123.243.33.118 15:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

William Ross, orchestratorEdit

Just a heads up, but one of the orchestrators for Star Trek Generations was a William Ross. While this *character* William J. Ross is obviously more important, i see no point in moving his page for *orchestrator* who is really just a blurb in the whole scheme of things. --Alan 03:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree; Ross the orchestrator should be found at William Ross (orchestrator), although there should be a disambig on this page. Not that anyone would actually be looking for the orchestrator. :-P --From Andoria with Love 03:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I also agree. Besides, it has always seemed the policy for MA to let in-universe canon pages get the natural title.– Cleanse 03:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review - Jan, 2014 Edit

After spending the better part of a day on the overhaul of this article, I have now put it up for Peer Review in the hopes I can get some positive constructive feedback on it. For reference, I have more or less rewritten the in-universe content to flow better and I have also added the "Personal relationships" and "Memorable quotes" sections. With regards to background information, I have added several items from the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion and numerous references in apocrypha. I hope anyone reading this will take the time to read it over, and provide their comments below. Thank you. --| TrekFan Open a channel 16:34, January 20, 2014 (UTC)

Is anyone willing to comment on the peer review? --| TrekFan Open a channel 16:24, January 24, 2014 (UTC)

Seems good on a brief read through I have just done. My two suggestions would be that the relationship between himself and Martok could be expanded a little, like you didn't include his distaste of when Martok wanted to drink over the Cardassian bodies in the last Ds9 episode. Also maybe his career could have sub headings splitting into years. --BorgKnight (talk) 17:16, January 24, 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting! That's true. Though the information is mentioned in the main career section, it might be worth giving it a brief one liner in the relationships section too. Let me know if there's anything else you spot. --| TrekFan Open a channel 19:12, January 24, 2014 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I've removed that small bit from the career section and moved it to the relationships section. I think you're right. It is more fitting that it falls under that heading. --| TrekFan Open a channel 19:17, January 24, 2014 (UTC)

I'm still looking for comments if anyone is interested in having a read over the article? --| TrekFan Open a channel 20:54, January 28, 2014 (UTC)

I think the article is well written and all important information is included. In my opinion I would remove the "see also" links off the "Appendices" section as this is in-universe information and does not belong into the "realworld" portion of the article. The links could be included into the article. Tom (talk) 23:53, February 1, 2014 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, is it even worth having those "See also" links there? You can pretty much get to them through the category links anyway, and via admiral. Think I should remove them completely? --| TrekFan Open a channel 11:24, February 2, 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the "See also" section should be removed - at least by moving the links to a more sensible in-universe location, but probably by removing them completely, as they are redundant. Also, I think the change to add "year sub-headings", although just suggested here, should be reverted. There's no real in-universe logic to separate 2374 stuff from 2375 stuff, and it only highlights the fact that the career section of a high-ranking starfleet officer is strangely incomplete. If the section needs sub-headings because of its length, there should be a more natural way to do so. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 17:36, February 2, 2014 (UTC)

I see your point, Cid. Rather than change it immediately, to avoid constant edits I'll leave it as is for now and see what others have to say so we can get some kind of consensus on the issue, if the sub-headings are needed at all. Thanks for posting your thoughts. --| TrekFan Open a channel 23:24, February 2, 2014 (UTC)

As it's been a few days since my last comment, I've gone ahead and removed the "see also" links at the bottom of the page. --| TrekFan Open a channel 06:48, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

Are there any further comments anyone wishes to make in this peer review? --| TrekFan Open a channel 06:23, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

One last shout out to anyone who may wish to weigh in on this peer review? --| TrekFan Open a channel 23:53, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

Peer review concluded. --| TrekFan Open a channel 12:44, February 25, 2014 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki