Battlestar Wiki:Featured articles/Debate for March 2007: Difference between revisions
More actions
→[[List of pilots]]: + oppose |
BklynBruzer (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
:{{Comment}} Care to supply some reasoning? Also, there has been debate on this topic. See the talk page of [[BW:FA]] for more. --[[User:BklynBruzer|BklynBruzer]] 17:13, 19 February 2007 (CST) | :{{Comment}} Care to supply some reasoning? Also, there has been debate on this topic. See the talk page of [[BW:FA]] for more. --[[User:BklynBruzer|BklynBruzer]] 17:13, 19 February 2007 (CST) | ||
{{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 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? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 20:30, 19 February 2007 (CST) | {{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 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? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 20:30, 19 February 2007 (CST) | ||
:{{Comment}} Thank you, Joe, for supplying a better reason than "Silly pages should not be eligable for Featured Article status." --[[User:BklynBruzer|BklynBruzer]] 22:26, 19 February 2007 (CST) | |||
{{Neutral}} --[[User:BklynBruzer|BklynBruzer]] 22:26, 19 February 2007 (CST) | |||
==[[Audrey Landers]]== | ==[[Audrey Landers]]== | ||
Revision as of 04:26, 20 February 2007
Support I nominated an actual serious article for once! --BklynBruzer 21:26, 9 February 2007 (CST)
Support --Serenity 15:13, 19 February 2007 (CST)
Support Shane (T - C - E) 17:22, 19 February 2007 (CST)
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)
Support A very good "list" on the pilots. Shane (T - C - E) 09:03, 14 February 2007 (CST)
Oppose My very first article, so I would be flattered, but I think it's a little dull content-wise. --Peter Farago 15:02, 19 February 2007 (CST)
Oppose It's alright, but just a list --Serenity 15:13, 19 February 2007 (CST)
Oppose Really just a list, not a meaty article. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 20:33, 19 February 2007 (CST)
Oppose. Silly pages should not be eligable for Featured Article status. --Peter Farago 15:02, 19 February 2007 (CST)
Oppose For the above reason --Serenity 15:13, 19 February 2007 (CST)
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)
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 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)
- 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)
Neutral --BklynBruzer 22:26, 19 February 2007 (CST)
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)
- Comment Overloaded with cites? Blasphemy! --Peter Farago 15:37, 19 February 2007 (CST)
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)