Battlestar Wiki:Featured articles/Debate for May 2007: Difference between revisions
From Battlestar Wiki, the free, open content Battlestar Galactica encyclopedia and episode guide
Spencerian (talk | contribs) |
BklynBruzer (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
* {{Support}} - I'd prefer this article over [[Cylons (RDM)]] ... great related imagery section, detailed analysis, I like it. [[User:JubalHarshaw|JubalHarshaw]] 15:14, 10 April 2007 (CDT) | * {{Support}} - I'd prefer this article over [[Cylons (RDM)]] ... great related imagery section, detailed analysis, I like it. [[User:JubalHarshaw|JubalHarshaw]] 15:14, 10 April 2007 (CDT) | ||
* {{Support}} - Agree with Jubal. --[[User:BklynBruzer|BklynBruzer]] 18:45, 10 April 2007 (CDT) | |||
==[[Cylons (RDM)]]== | ==[[Cylons (RDM)]]== | ||
Revision as of 23:45, 10 April 2007
Cylon Centurion
Support - I'd prefer this article over Cylons (RDM) ... great related imagery section, detailed analysis, I like it. JubalHarshaw 15:14, 10 April 2007 (CDT)- Support - Agree with Jubal. --BklynBruzer 18:45, 10 April 2007 (CDT)
Cylons (RDM)
Oppose - Not that it isn't a good article, it's just that something strikes me wrong about it. It's almost poetry more than an encyclopedia article. Not that that is bad. Just ... non-FA, IMHO. JubalHarshaw 15:14, 10 April 2007 (CDT)- Oppose I don't know. It feels more like a better disambiguation than an article in its own right --Serenity 15:20, 10 April 2007 (CDT)
Comment: Aw, and I thought my recent changes with the dual pictures of Six and a bullethead were just witty. :) Still, from an information perspective, I guess I can understand. It's not like we're sensationalism over substance like CNN or something. :P --Spencerian 15:30, 10 April 2007 (CDT)
