Toggle menu
Toggle preferences menu
Toggle personal menu
Not logged in
Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits.

Battlestar Wiki:Featured articles/Debate for March 2007: Difference between revisions

From Battlestar Wiki, the free, open content Battlestar Galactica encyclopedia and episode guide
Spencerian (talk | contribs)
Joe Beaudoin Jr. (talk | contribs)
Line 26: Line 26:
{{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? 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 <s>Spencerian</s> 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? -- [[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)
:{{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)
:[[Battlestar_Wiki_talk:Featured_articles#Silly_Pages|Ahem.]] --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 08:10, 20 February 2007 (CST)
:[[Battlestar_Wiki_talk:Featured_articles#Silly_Pages|Ahem.]] --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 08:10, 20 February 2007 (CST)
::Oh. My bad... could be worse... you know like being [[A Day in the Life|locked in a slowly depressurizing airlock]]. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 15:09, 20 February 2007 (CST)
{{Neutral}} --[[User:BklynBruzer|BklynBruzer]] 22:26, 19 February 2007 (CST)<br />
{{Neutral}} --[[User:BklynBruzer|BklynBruzer]] 22:26, 19 February 2007 (CST)<br />
{{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. [[User:JubalHarshaw|JubalHarshaw]] 09:17, 20 February 2007 (CST)
{{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. [[User:JubalHarshaw|JubalHarshaw]] 09:17, 20 February 2007 (CST)

Revision as of 21:09, 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)

Neutral 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)

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)
Neutral per Joe, but I would Support. JubalHarshaw 09:20, 20 February 2007 (CST)

Neutral 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 Good as a list, but not especially FA-worthy --BklynBruzer 22:27, 19 February 2007 (CST)

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)

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 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)

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)

Neutral --BklynBruzer 22:26, 19 February 2007 (CST)
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)

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)
Comment Never get the Concision Fairy angry. You wouldn't like him when he's angry. --Spencerian 10:07, 20 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)
Support I dont see why lots of citations is a bad thing. Supp --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 04:15, 20 February 2007 (CST)
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)

Neutral --BklynBruzer 07:45, 20 February 2007 (CST)

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

Support Shane (T - C - E) 09:47, 20 February 2007 (CST)