Battlestar Wiki:Featured articles/Debate for March 2007: Difference between revisions
More actions
BklynBruzer (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
BklynBruzer (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
{{Oppose}}. Silly pages should not be eligable for Featured Article status. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 15:02, 19 February 2007 (CST)<br/> | {{Oppose}}. Silly pages should not be eligable for Featured Article status. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 15:02, 19 February 2007 (CST)<br/> | ||
{{Oppose}} For the above reason --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 15:13, 19 February 2007 (CST)<br/> | {{Oppose}} For the above reason --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 15:13, 19 February 2007 (CST)<br/> | ||
:{{Comment}} Care to supply some reasoning? --[[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) | ||
==[[Audrey Landers]]== | ==[[Audrey Landers]]== | ||
{{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 --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 15:13, 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 --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 15:13, 19 February 2007 (CST) | ||
:{{Comment}} Overloaded with cites? Blasphemy! --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 15:37, 19 February 2007 (CST) | :{{Comment}} Overloaded with cites? Blasphemy! --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 15:37, 19 February 2007 (CST) | ||
Revision as of 23:21, 19 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 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. 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)
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)