Battlestar Wiki:Featured articles/Debate for March 2007

From Battlestar Wiki, the free, open content Battlestar Galactica encyclopedia and episode guide

Tom Zarek

Symbol support vote.svg Support I nominated an actual serious article for once! --BklynBruzer 21:26, 9 February 2007 (CST)

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Serenity 15:13, 19 February 2007 (CST)

Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Shane (T - C - E) 17:22, 19 February 2007 (CST)

Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Maybe we should wait until the end of season 3 before we get this one as an FA, since I think it will change for the better with Baltar's trial coming up. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 20:04, 19 February 2007 (CST)

Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Agrre with Joe, I think the rest of the series is going to be very important --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 04:13, 20 February 2007 (CST)
Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral per Joe, but I would Support. JubalHarshaw 09:20, 20 February 2007 (CST)

List of pilots

Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral A very good "list" on the pilots. Shane (T - C - E) 09:03, 14 February 2007 (CST)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose My very first article, so I would be flattered, but I think it's a little dull content-wise. --April Arcus 15:02, 19 February 2007 (CST)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's alright, but just a list --Serenity 15:13, 19 February 2007 (CST)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Really just a list, not a meaty article. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 20:33, 19 February 2007 (CST)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good as a list, but not especially FA-worthy --BklynBruzer 22:27, 19 February 2007 (CST)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Its a good list, but a list none the less and thus not FA worthy. --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 04:14, 20 February 2007 (CST)

The Battlestar Galactica Drinking Game

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Silly pages should not be eligable for Featured Article status. --April Arcus 15:02, 19 February 2007 (CST)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose For the above reason --Serenity 15:13, 19 February 2007 (CST)

Symbol opinion vote.svg Comment Care to supply some reasoning? Also, there has been debate on this topic. See the talk page of BW:FA for more. --BklynBruzer 17:13, 19 February 2007 (CST)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose While I consider myself a defender of the awesome silly pages, these silly articles aren't fully representative of the Wiki, and comprise less than 1% of it (as Spencerian Steelviper noted on the FA talk page). Looking from an outsider's perspective, which is better to show as an example: a "drinking game" article (which every show has a variant of anyway) or an article on a pivotal character, event, or episode? -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 20:30, 19 February 2007 (CST)

Symbol opinion vote.svg Comment Thank you, Joe, for supplying a better reason than "Silly pages should not be eligable for Featured Article status." --BklynBruzer 22:26, 19 February 2007 (CST)
Ahem. --Steelviper 08:10, 20 February 2007 (CST)
Oh. My bad... could be worse... you know like being locked in a slowly depressurizing airlock. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 15:09, 20 February 2007 (CST)
No biggie. It's not as if I don't make the same error myself often reading the RC. It's one of those things where your brain sees S(something)n/r and the "autocomplete" happens to be wrong. --Steelviper 15:19, 20 February 2007 (CST)

Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral --BklynBruzer 22:26, 19 February 2007 (CST)
Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral, but I would Support. It's a pretty well-fleshed article that serves multiple purposes besides just humor. (It's also a list of overused cliches, stock footage, etc.) That being said, I definitely support Joe's reasoning for opposition. I suppose I'm indifferent; a good article is a good article, silly or not. JubalHarshaw 09:17, 20 February 2007 (CST)

Audrey Landers

Symbol support vote.svg Support Too overloaded with cites for my taste, but if one considers that to be important, this one is very good. Also tons of content otherwise --Serenity 15:13, 19 February 2007 (CST)

Symbol opinion vote.svg Comment Overloaded with cites? Blasphemy! --April Arcus 15:37, 19 February 2007 (CST)
Symbol opinion vote.svg Comment Never get the Concision Fairy angry. You wouldn't like him when he's angry. --Spencerian 10:07, 20 February 2007 (CST)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Even with the cite-overload, I personally hold it as a very fine example of what a cast/crew biographical article should look like. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 20:32, 19 February 2007 (CST)
Symbol support vote.svg Support I dont see why lots of citations is a bad thing. Supp --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 04:15, 20 February 2007 (CST)
Symbol support vote.svg Support This is a very worthy article and as perfectly cited as the Landers sisters were perfectly curved. --Spencerian 07:39, 20 February 2007 (CST)

Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral --BklynBruzer 07:45, 20 February 2007 (CST)

Symbol support vote.svg Support for all the reasons above. JubalHarshaw 09:21, 20 February 2007 (CST)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Shane (T - C - E) 09:47, 20 February 2007 (CST)