Memory Alpha


Back to page

39,362pages on
this wiki

FA status Edit

Nomination (02 Apr - 23 Apr 2015, Success) Edit

  • One of the most complete "book" pages I've seen, including "Ghosts". - Archduk3 23:15, April 2, 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: For the reasons stated in my comments below. --| TrekFan Open a channel 18:14, April 4, 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I'm always wary of novel articles as Featured Articles since a lot of the content is simply copied material from the book jacket or lists of characters. They very rarely bring anything new to the table that I personally would consider "the best example of Memory Alpha's work". That said, if all the information on the novel is there then I suppose it is as complete as it's ever going to get. I'm going to think on this for a little while and will return to post my vote in due course. --| TrekFan Open a channel 14:33, April 3, 2015 (UTC)

Comment: As we only give the SCE omnibuses their own pages and the individual ebooks redirect over to them, each sub-book should contain the "back cover blurb" at the start of its section. -- sulfur (talk) 14:55, April 3, 2015 (UTC)
Done! :) -- Renegade54 (talk) 17:23, April 3, 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Oh yeah, I'm not disputing that the cover blurb should be there. I'm just in two minds about whether an article comprised mostly of them should be considered an FA when we have a lot of other articles that comprise a lot more detailed write-ups. --| TrekFan Open a channel 17:04, April 3, 2015 (UTC)

TrekFan, I'm not sure why you're under the impression that this page is comprised mostly of blurbs, since the thing that most interested me was that it wasn't. All of the descriptions are pretty detailed as far as I can tell, which is enough to be several times longer than the blurb, and I think they convey at least enough of the story to follow it while still leaving me wanting to read these books. I can't say that I've wanted, or felt I needed to, watch something after some of our more "extremely" detailed episode/film summaries. Also, simply having a "complete" reference list puts this miles ahead of most of the "print" articles, which I think makes this an example of MA's best work. - Archduk3 07:08, April 4, 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying I dislike the article, just that I was in two minds about it. Yes, the summary is quite a good write up and having thought on this a bit since my last comment, I think I'm going to support this nomination. --| TrekFan Open a channel 18:14, April 4, 2015 (UTC)

  • Support. Maybe some "illustrations" (images from the novel collection) could enhance the article but that is only my personal opinion. Tom (talk) 17:23, April 10, 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Been doing a lot on novel writers, so yes, I'd go for this. Second ThomasHL's suggestion-RayBell (talk) 16:37, April 18, 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - While I'm admittedly more at ease with BG reference works I subscribe to Duke's original assessment, reinforced by the blurb adds by TrekFan--Sennim (talk) 21:42, April 21, 2015 (UTC)

Peer review Edit

Well, I'm hoping for this to be the first novel to be Featured - and the material is there, I just think it could use some re-phrasing and editing; I'd also like to hear what others think it could use. I'd like to see the last two summaries shortened a little (to remove what isn't as important) and to clear up the wording. (ie: I tend to use more commas then nessesary, and it makes some sentences sound weird even to me.) - AJ Halliwell 23:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, seems no one is interested. --Alan del Beccio 22:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

FA status vs splitting up individual booksEdit

The rest of the SCE series is slowly being converted to the standards we've set elsewhere on MA/en (ie, articles for individual entries, and the omnibus is merely showing the collected version, linking to the individual entries). Having said that, this is a featured article (as noted above) dating from earlier this year. As such, I'm currently a bit loathe to split this one up without some further discussion as to what the current FA status will result in... Thoughts? -- sulfur (talk) 14:54, October 14, 2015 (UTC)

This should be handeled the same way splitting Constitution class model was, as in the current article after the split "can't" be a FA, in this case because almost all of the content is going elsewhere, as opposed to all of the content for CCM, but the split off parts could be FAs, and at least should be reviewed. - Archduk3 18:39, October 14, 2015 (UTC)

Would you mind taking the lead on that? I'm not sure how to approach/deal with that, and you've been the lead on FAs to date...

As things stand, it's the only SCE omnibus not "split". -- sulfur (talk) 18:58, October 14, 2015 (UTC)

I'm not taking the lead on anything other than leaving wikia for the time being, and I really don't have the time for that right now either. I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but I really don't think I can stomach "working" for them anymore, especially with them thinking they can do whatever the hell they want with our content.
That said, I would split the article using temp pages under the redirects, so they still work for the time being, and then start a FA review for the new articles. One overall discussion should be enough for people to decide if they're up to snuff individually. Several temps under the current blurb also need to be created, since almost nothing from the current blurb is salvageable, and the new ones will all have to be approved. If any of the pages pass muster, the {{featured}} template already has variables for showing the pre and post split history, and the FA discussions just need to be copied to the new talk pages. If none of them pass, simply split the article and put the review discussion here under the nomination.
In short, just follow the CCM discussion precedent in the archive; it was a major pain to create, so it would be nice if it was of some use to somebody other than myself. ;) - Archduk3 04:27, October 15, 2015 (UTC)

This has now been done here. -- sulfur (talk) 13:10, October 16, 2015 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki