Memory Alpha

Changes: Memory Alpha:Featured article reviews

View source

Back to page

(Reconfirmations with objections: re (edit conflict))
(rm SS uniforms, failed)
Line 3: Line 3:
==Reconfirmations with objections==
==Reconfirmations with objections==
=== [[Schutzstaffel uniforms and insignia‎]] ===
{{FA/Schutzstaffel uniforms and insignia}}
Originally nominated in January 2008, this article failed and was renominated four days later, leading to it being considered "problomatic". We have a blurb template for this article located [[Template:FA/Schutzstaffel uniforms and insignia|here]]. I personally don't have any opinion on this currently, though I've added some basic formatting updates after preliminary skimming the article. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 07:21, January 30, 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''- vehemently so, for the following reasons:
:#The article is riddled with "fan-created" imagery, discussion on which is apparently still on-going. No matter, as long as no resolution is agreed upon as of yet, FA-status is out of the question by default...
:#Apart from the fan-created bit, there are some fan creations that have not appeared on screen, why are they here? If they are allowed here, so why would not real world pictures of the RMS Titanic or the USS Enterprise (WWII), that were previously removed?
:#While I'm impressed with the lay-out and thoroughness of the article, I'm baffled, and quite honestly appalled with the apparent lack of sensitivity when it was first offered up for FA nomination (and its passing as such). Imagine this: I'm a grandchild of a Shoah survivor or worse, victim, and I am for the first time accessing the MA site, only to be greeted on the first time with the "Article of the Week": '''NAZI REGALIA'''...I don not know about you guys, but this would be bad, very bad...MA would be '''VERY''' much served by taking as much as possible distance from even the slightest hint of possible endorsement of the nazi idealogy--[[User:Sennim|Sennim]] 20:12, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
There is no "ongoing" discussion for recreations, since the last post there was more than two weeks ago. Nothing was resolved to a point where changes to the image policy could be made, so the status quo remains. Also, featured articles are judged by the standing policies, not "what the policy could be", so an ongoing discussion shouldn't effect a reconfirmation, or nomination, beyond '''hold'''ing up the resolution until the policy discussion is resolved. That said, which ones haven't appeared on screen? Those should be checked and removed if they haven't. As for the article's subject disallowing FA status, I'm vehemently against that, as that's a "slippery slope" at best, but I do agree that this article being featured has always made me a bit uncomfortable. Regardless, ''if'' this meets the FA requirements, and I'm not suggesting it does (since I still need to read it completely), I don't think the hard work put into it should be slighted because the subject is untasteful, because MA is suppose to not comment on the subject. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 21:41, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
:Well, we have these ones [[:File:SpecialSSCrests.jpg|one]], [[:File:SSCuffband.jpg|this one]], [[:File:Reichsführer-SS cuffband.jpg|this one]], amongst others. I do see your point of "slippery slope" cases, nevertheless I do think I've a solid point concerning item 3. And as I've already stated I'm impressed with the work that went into it. A possible solution could be it being a FA-article without blurb on the home-page, since I strongly feel it shouldn't be featured, under no circumstances...--[[User:Sennim|Sennim]] 21:56, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
:*'''Support''' reconfirmation. The dispute about the image policy is not relevant here, as recreation of insignia which appeared in canon are and would be valid regardless of the wording of the policy; and additionally Archduk is correct in that it should be judged as the policy is now. I won't restate them but I pretty much agree with what Archduk said.
::As to the potential of "endorsing Nazi ideology"; we don't endorse it any more that the Star Trek franchise does, and we shouldn't treat it any differently than they did- otherwise we are just censoring information, which only draws people to the subject more. I would oppose any effort to treat this differently than any other FA. If someone is offended by any article's subject matter, they should not read it. I think the tremendous amount of work that went into this article should be recognized, and I still support it as I did when it was initially nominated.--[[User:31dot|31dot]] 22:16, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
[Edit conflict] - I know the Hitler cuffband was used in the TOS episodes, since those uniforms were "stock" uniforms for WWII films, and the cuff can be [[:File:Ekosian corporal.jpg|seen and read]], even though they ''shouldn't'' say that in universe. I don't know if the VOY uniforms had the cuff though, so if they don't, the cuff could be talk about as a production limitation since they were not meant to be readable in TOS. I don't know about the others images right now though.
As for having certain FAs not be on the front page, I ''might'' support that if the portals were changed in a manner similar to what I've [[Forum:The portals|suggested]], since it would still be "featured" somewhere, just not directly where new visitors are suppose to go. A clear line would need to be drawn about what content shouldn't be displayed on the main page though, and I feel it needs to be pointed out that MA currently doesn't "censor" anything that was in the shows, and I tend to agree with that. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 22:34, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
:I'll forgo, against my grain, the whole discussion about the fan-pics. That being said I'll go along with the rest of the suggestions (I do agree it is a good article), providing the article is '''NEVER''' featured on the homepage, in other words, it is a FA without a blurb, it'll never appear on the homepage; If that cannot be agreed upon my '''oppose''' vote will remain--[[User:Sennim|Sennim]] 22:54, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
::I have no opinion regarding the article itself or its FA status at the moment, but I think it would set a bad precedent to have a "non-featured featured article". The whole point of merging FA/Peer Review/AotW processes some time ago was to actually ''do'' feature our Featured Articles - on our Main Page. So, should that be the outcome of this discussion, I'm going to oppose that. -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 23:02, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
[Edit conflict] - While I agree with your feelings on this Sennim, objections must relate to the [[Memory Alpha:Featured article criteria|criteria]], so while your objection about the possible use of insignia not seen in canon is valid (though I would hope in the future these could be investigated with only a '''hold''' instead or an oppose), the objection to this being on the main page isn't, since that would be a [[Memory Alpha:Featured article policies|policy issue]] (and hence wouldn't effect this article until settled). You're free to [[Memory Alpha talk:Featured article policies|start that discussion]] of course, but my reservations about it remain. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 23:08, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
== Early reconfirmations ==
== Early reconfirmations ==

Revision as of 06:59, February 19, 2012


Reconfirmations without objections

Reconfirmations with objections

Early reconfirmations

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki