FA nominations Edit

FA nomination (23 Sep - 19 Oct 2011, Failed) Edit

I would like to nominate the article Gorkon as a FA. There is an extensive amount of Background information, providing much detail on the development of the character and views on the character. I learned some stuff by reading it. I also feel the canon part of the article covers the character well and also succinct. Even if this does not succeed, kudos to Defiant for his work.--31dot 20:15, September 23, 2011 (UTC)

  • Support for reasons as given in the peer review--Sennim 00:59, September 24, 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, guys. This was actually an article that, surprisingly, turned out better than I had originally expected. I tried to put in about as much effort into the bg info sections of the Martia and Rura Penthe articles. But I thought the bg info for this one, Gorkon, turned out the best (and is, moreover, as complete as possible). I also really like the in-universe and the apocrypha sections (both of which, for the most part, I did not write), the former of which (I feel) is admirably concise. --Defiant 11:30, September 24, 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Well written and researched. Tom 11:53, September 24, 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Must say I don't see what all the fuss is about. It's far from the perfect article, which the featured article criteria enjoin us to approach. I specifically object to:
  • The lead. Where the hell is it? It's buried deeeeeeeep in the final paragraph, really. As things stand the lead ends with a sentence about him owning a bone cane and a necklace? That's not lead-worthy. The lead ends with no clear definition of the article's subject if it ends with the fashion accessories he possesses! What's critical about this character is the impact of his murder upon the Khitomer Conference, and the resulting Accords. He's a Big Damn Deal, and the lead fritters that away on . . . jewelry. I think the lead should end with something along the lines of:
The circumstances of Gorkon's death directly lead to a frosty climate between the United Federation of Planets and the Klingon Empire at the Khitomer Conference. Only a full explanation of the conspiracy behind his murder allowed for the successful negotiation of the Khitomer Accords.
  • The hugely long sentences in graf 3. This article has only really been heavily edited since mid-August. I don't think that's quite enough time to have worked out its grammatical kinks. As the "perfect article" guidelines make clear, a well-written article has gone through "many, many revisions". We're only talking about 3 dozen revisions since serious attention has been paid to the article. A sure sign of the article's lack of maturity can be found in the third paragraph, which opens with three huge sentences that are, in my opinion, only just shy of run-on sentences. The first clear sentence in the last paragraph is:
After Kronos One had restored power, Captain Kirk and Doctor Leonard McCoy beamed aboard to provide medical assistance.
Before this point, it's parenthetical followed by dependent clause. I think the main problem of those first three sentences is they've lost sight of what the article is about. It's about Gorkon. It's not about the experimental Bird-of-Prey. I'd suggest something a bit snappier:
After dinner, Gorkon returned to Kronos One. It was thereafter disabled by two photon torpedos, appearing to originate from Enterprise. Two assassins, their faces obscured, then beamed over from Kirk's ship. They moved wordlessly through Kronos One, which was crippled by a lack of artificial gravity. This condition made it easy for them, equipped with gravity boots, to systematically kill Klingons en route to the Chancellor. Indeed, they were able to easily wound a floating and defenseless Gorkon with a fatal phaser shot to the chest.
Remember, the "perfect article" guidelines tell us that "long, rambling sentences should be avoided".
  • The whole article needs to be copyedited for overlong sentences and fairly useless parentheticals. If it's important to note that he called the future "the undiscovered country", then that shouldn't be in parentheses. Do we need to know that Azetbur inherited his necklace? Really?
  • Redlinks. I'm a little concerned that the background section of the article contains redlinks. It's not a specific disqualifier given in any guidelines. But the first thing I thought when I read the background section was, "If you're gonna quote from production personnel, those people should have articles here." So, I don't know if that's a deal-breaker for FA status, but it's certainly something that needs correction at some point.
  • Organisation of background section. The background section feels disorganised, to me. We're told by the "perfect article" guidelines that "sections should almost always be used to divide the material into appropriate parts", and the "background" section feels like it needs sub-sections. As it is, the final paragraphs feel like little more than bullet points. I almost feel like the information should be divided into "pre-production", "production", and "after release", just to give the information some form. Little bits, like the identity of Warner's stunt double, are getting a bit lost in the mix.
  • USS Gorkon. Should this only be in the "background" section? It's really buried deep in that text. Couldn't it also be mentioned in the in-universe section, with a phrase like, "The 24th century Federation vessel, USS Gorkon, was ostensibly named in his honor". I dunno, maybe even that's too conjectural, but it just seems weird not to mention the in-universe existence of a ship of the same name. Even pulling it up into the disambig note would give readers a better chance of finding this little nugget of in-universe info.
  • Is this article actually stable? I throw that question out there, because it's one of the basic concepts of the featured article criteria. We're told that "the article content should not have changed significantly within the last few weeks" — but that precisely describes this article. Again, its current round of revisions only began about six weeks ago. Maybe it's fine, I dunno. But it's worth asking the question, "how many weeks are a few"? And this is really my big objection to the whole nomination. It feels like we're giving the nod to one editor's recent work on the thing. His revisions, while impressive, deserve to sit with the community for a big longer and age a bit. I feel like the article could be massively improved if more people joined in.

czechout@fandom    15:02: Fri 30 Sep 2011 

A few comments:

  • Redlinks should not be a disqualifier. The fact that another article has not been created doesn't mean this one is bad. The quotes come from the given sources, not the person themselves, so their article or a lack thereof is irrelevant.
  • A "few" is three. It does not need to sit for months to be "stable", nor is it required to have contributions from many people. That's not to say there shouldn't be, but the fact one person has done a lot of work should not disqualify this article. Nothing has prevented you from doing so before now; there was a peer review which few commented on.
  • The Background section is short enough, that I feel it doesn't need to be subdivided. Doing so would break it up too much.
  • I disagree that there are too many "hugely long sentences".

I may have more comments later.--31dot 15:19, September 30, 2011 (UTC)

I may have done a lot of work on it, but I'm certainly not the only one. Even the bg info section, which I worked the most on, benefited from the input of editors such as TrekFan (who helpfully notified me that there was a page from which further info could be taken) and Cleanse (who contributed the citation for the TNG info). I do believe that any connection between the ship and the character named Gorkon is not canonical, having not been established on-screen; historically, there were multiple Klingons with the name Duras and Worf – how do we know the same wasn't true of Gorkon?! --Defiant 15:30, September 30, 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the points 31dot has succinctly made. Also, an error you repeatedly seem to make, CzechOut, is thinking that this article should have the same perspective as the movie does. The film makes a big deal out of "the undiscovered country" line, but how do we know it was actually all that important in his life? The same is true of his death and its effects; as commented upon in one of the bg notes, his life was much vaster than just that single event. Your comment about the jewelry is acceptable, though, and one of the points that Sennim made during the peer review, so I've made that minor change. --Defiant 16:00, September 30, 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your responses. I feel we're making some headway.
Let me just focus initially, though, on the matter of the lead for the moment. All you've done in your recent change is to clip away the one sentence about the jewelry and move it to the end. Fine, that's an improvement, but you're still nowhere close to the "perfect article". Leads need to clearly define the article's subject and give a sense of the direction the article will take. All your lead says now is that he was the leader of the High Council in a particular year. The bulk of the article is, however, about his death. You say there's a wider life, and of course there must be. But we don't know any of it canonically. There are hundreds of High Council leaders about whom we know nothing — not even a name. But the entire reason we know about Gorkon is because he tried to broker a peace with the Federation, was killed for it, and the peace negotiations he initiated concluded only when his murder was solved. That should be in the lead, because that, for all practical purposes, defines Gorkon. As the "perfect article" guidelines make clear, leads need to "define the article's subject". It is no kind of definition to say merely that "Gorkon was the leader of the High Council in the year XXXX".
Other points I'm willing to consider asked and answered at this point:
  • Redlinks. Fine, it's not specifically enumerated as an FA barrier in policy, so if you're happy to let those go, I'll drop the objection.
  • 'Stability of article. Not sure where 31dot is getting the 3 week thing from, but, fine, I'll accept it as an unwritten, common-sense kinda rule. it was just a question arising from ill-defined policy.
Things that still worry me:
  • Wide range of editors. I certainly accept there were other people along the way. But it's not really an example of a hugely collaborative article, is it? If we take Defiant's edits out of the picture, would there actually be an FA nom on the table? I somehow doubt it. After all, there wasn't one at any other stage of the article's development. Also, I think 31dot is not representing policy correctly when he says "nor is it required to have contributions from many people". The "perfect article" guidelines flatly state that perfect articles include "contributions from many members". I'm not seeing that many members since 14 August, and I'm definitely not seeing revisions where one person actively edits the language choices of the person who came before. Most of what's been done since August has been in the nature of adding on new information — which is great! — rather than collaboration over the existing material — which is equally helpful.
  • Long sentences. Just saying "I don't agree that there are long sentences" doesn't make them go away. Again, this isn't just a stylistic preference on my part. It's something which is specifically in the policy that governs this process. Short, clear, interesting sentences are desired in FAs.
  • Organisation of background section. A featured article is an example of how things should be done in other articles. I don't think we want to be telling other editors, "Just stick the information anywhere". That's really what's happening in this background section, especially when you match the additions to the article history. It's clear that ThomasHL just stuck the auction info and the stunt double in wherever he felt appropriate. There was no subsequent effort to organise his additions. From a reader's perspective the background section is just one long list of . . . stuff. Dividing into a section about pre-production or "character concept", one about production, and one about stuff that happened after the film's premiere, would focus the background information better. Now, I realise none of that is in any MA format guideline. But it would make it more logically organised — and that is definitely a part of the FA criteria.
Things not understood from the above responses
  • The suggestion that because I didn't participate in the peer review means I can't now raise objections at the FA nom. You're gonna have to provide a policy reference for that one, I'm afraid. I'm not in any sense "late", by the rules of the FA nom process. Sorry if you thought this nomination was going to go through "on the nod" and you're now upset to find someone has genuine problems with the article.
  • "Also, an error you repeatedly seem to make, CzechOut, is thinking that this article should have the same perspective as the movie does." Don't even understand what "the same perspective as the movie" means, much less how it could be an "error" to stick to canon. Perhaps you could amplify that point a little more?
  • USS Gorkon. Yeah, fine, not canonically established. (But I still think it's logically unlikely to be another Gorkon on a Federation ship hull. If it were a Klingon ship, you'd have more of a point.) Still, I think it should be on the dab note. After all if you type in "Enterprise" to the search bar, you get a dab page. Typing in "Gorkon" gives you the character, and you have to go all the way down the page to a nested comment to find out there is such a thing as the USS Gorkon. A link to USS Gorkon should definitely be at the top of this article, in the dab note. People are much more likely to be looking for something with the same name than they are something that merely has a similar name.

czechout@fandom    19:35: Fri 30 Sep 2011 

My comments:

  • I did not say that because you did not post in the peer review that means you cannot comment now; I was trying to say that there was ample opportunity for you and others to contribute, both during the peer review and beforehand- so your criticism that not enough people participated is not well founded. There have been many chances that users did not avail themselves of and it is unfair for them to come along now and state that not enough people participated. Yes, many contributors is helpful and desired- but it would be irresponsible to let good articles sit around simply because many people did not work on them. The last few FA nominations(successful and not) were worked on pretty much by one person.
  • I'm really not seeing any long sentences here that take away from the article- perhaps that is just my stylistic preference talking.
  • There is such a thing as over-organizing and over-subdividing an article, and I feel doing so here would be too much. If you have issues with placement of information it can certainly be moved around. --31dot 01:18, October 1, 2011 (UTC)
But the placement of info follows a logical progression, so I don't really see that happening. I very much wish you'd voiced an opinion during the peer review, CzechOut; it now seems much more uncertain whether your changes are supported/opposed by community consensus, as they weren't made/suggested during that period of review – just seems really a bit unfair of you to raise all these points now, following the peer review, as so much work has gone into this (both from myself and from others, but mostly the latter). I was actually considering submitting this for peer review before working on the bg info but, since I realized I could add substantially more to the bg info section, I did so. Now, I'm left wondering... what the heck do I do with it now(?), since it's not only unclear how supported/opposed your points are, but also even making the changes you've suggested would probably constitute the article being unstable. Since this could go on basically ad infinitum (i.e. editors not contributing to a peer review but then raising multiple opposing points in the FA nomination process, necessitating another peer review that another editor doesn't contribute to but then raises multiple opposing points in the FA nomination process, necessitating yet another peer review, etc., etc.), I think there should be some policy against this. --Defiant 03:29, October 1, 2011 (UTC)
My problem with the suggested bg info subsection headings is that they're not very relevant to this character article. "Pre-production", "production", and "after release" all relate to the film itself, but something much more relevant to the character would be a lot better. Even then, however, I highly doubt all the notes can fit under headings, since there's plenty of stand-alone ones (like the aforementioned note, re: perspective). I also agree with 31dot's point that "There is such a thing as over-organizing and over-subdividing an article, and I feel doing so here would be too much." --Defiant 10:17, October 2, 2011 (UTC)
Defining Gorkon, in the lead, as simply a Chancellor of the Klingon Empire doesn't stray from canon and Gorkon was more than what the film depicted him as, a fact you've already admitted, CzechOut. Sticking too rigidly to canon for in-universe info produces articles that read too much like episode/film summaries. Plus, having info about his death in two different areas of the article runs the risk of over-repeating the information. All in all, the lead should have the least amount of historical/time-based info as possible, while the date of 2293 gives it perspective, defining it to one particular era. --Defiant 11:21, October 2, 2011 (UTC)
New thoughts popping up in the FA process instead of in the preceding PR process is unfortunate, but can't really be helped unless we merge both processes (and stop calling the result a superlative like "best article we have"). Just creating a policy for this exact circumstance won't work - we can't simply exclude contributors from the second process just because they've missed the first one, and still call the resulting nomination one "by the community". What you can (and probably should) do now is to work on the article to make it a better one, and eventually nominate it again - after some time, to allow the article to become stable again. -- Cid Highwind 13:10, October 2, 2011 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I share the opinion that some of the sentences (mostly in the assassination paragraph) are too long. On top of that, I don't like the use of "NOTOC" - there are more than enough subsections in the Appendices section that should be accessible via a TOC. If the auto-position of the TOC is a concern, this should be solved by forcing the TOC to a specific position, or by adding section headers to the in-universe part. Also, and this is just small thing, I'm not sure whether we should have Klingon transcriptions ("thlIngan hol: XYZ") in our articles - is that even canon? -- Cid Highwind 13:32, October 2, 2011 (UTC)

Re the transcriptions- they are a lot of them around, and I'm not sure where they come from if not from the Klingon Dictionary(or other sources). Should probably be discussed somewhere.--31dot 14:46, October 2, 2011 (UTC)

Done: Forum:Klingon translations. -- Cid Highwind 15:19, October 2, 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the "NOTOC" issue, it's a little bit above my head, the one (and only) uncertain technical detail for me being that I'm not quite sure how to "force" the TOC to a specific location. I think possibly adding a section heading to the in-universe area may be a good idea, but I'm not sure what we could call it. I agree with the plan of action being that we continue to work on this article, trying to make it more suitable for as many users as possible (a so-called "better" article). To this end, I've inserted the experimental subsections into the bg info area as well as the disambig lk to USS Gorkon. --Defiant 21:17, October 2, 2011 (UTC)
The TOC can be forced to a specific position using __TOC__ at that position. That should be the last resort though, adding a good in-universe section header would be better. -- Cid Highwind 21:47, October 2, 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Still, thanks for the info. :) Is there a good in-universe header we can use? --Defiant 10:23, October 3, 2011 (UTC)
Update – as one can see from the page, I selected "biographical record" for the in-universe portion. I'd be interested to ascertain whether there are any objections to the page now (aside from the obvious lack of stability)? --Defiant 15:28, October 3, 2011 (UTC)
The top of the article looks very "chaotic" now - first there are two disambiguation notes, then a single sentence, then a TOC and a section header, then another sentence, then a big background note (very early in the article). Compare that to, for example, Gowron, which looks much cleaner. My suggestion would be to make the initial sentence a proper paragraph of 3-4 sentences, and move the bgnote back to its Appendices subsection (and perhaps the relatively unimportant "cane&necklace" info to a less prominent place). -- Cid Highwind 16:01, October 3, 2011 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Cid on this one for aethetics--Sennim 17:12, October 3, 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, guys. The difficulty seems to be reconciling the chronological-minded heading with the placement of the info about his cane & necklace, without taking the reader out of the time-based arrangement of that in-universe section. Would someone else like to have a go? --Defiant 18:09, October 3, 2011 (UTC)
Evidently not. I made the changes helpfully suggested by Cid. :) Further comments would be more than welcome. --Defiant 11:02, October 4, 2011 (UTC)
Ah, me like. One last point, running the risk of sounding peevish, forgive me for that, I still think aesthetics would be improved if the very first sentence is somewhat enlarged by an additional comment like "He was in this capacity noted for the peace overtures he made to the Federation" or wordings as you deem fit...A short sentence as it is now, seems a bit lost between the amb. notes and the TOC...My two cents..--Sennim 11:31, October 4, 2011 (UTC)
I've tried to act on this advice, adding the sentence, "In this capacity, he was noted for making peace overtures to the United Federation of Planets that, following his death, led to an historic cessation of hostilities between that organization and the Klingon Empire." However, I'm not entirely sure of the accurateness of the latter part of that sentence. If "an historic cessation of hostilities" is not technically what Gorkon's peace overtures did achieve or if someone can phrase better what they did lead to, I'd be more than happy to change it. --Defiant 12:45, October 4, 2011 (UTC)
I've now also taken care of the issue regarding red links. Any more problems with the article and/or ways to improve it? --Defiant 14:26, October 4, 2011 (UTC)
You're right insofar that we don't really know what's exactly happened between IV and TNG, (since it can be inferred that it must have been a long drawn-out process with ups and downs), but in my opinion that can be fixed by adding "eventually" before led to an... as I think that Gorkon's efforts were the first serious such overtures...--Sennim 14:29, October 4, 2011 (UTC)
Done. --Defiant 14:33, October 4, 2011 (UTC)
Wow. This article has really come along. The two big things I see outstanding are the rather awkward dab note — I'd agree with those upthread who called it "chaotic" — and still that pesky lead.
Disambig first. Do we really need to put each dab note on its own line? Can't it be something like:
You may be looking for the Federation starship of the same name or the species of a similar name.
That would seem much more compact and elegant to me, but maybe that falls foul of the MOS. Not sure.
And now the lead. It's better — way better. But I think the solution to Defiant's stated difficulties above is simply greater specificity. My suggestion would be: don't try to characterise; do report the facts.
Gorkon was the Chancellor of the Klingon High Council in 2293. He notably pursued peaceful relations with the United Federation of Planets, but was murdered just prior to the start of the Khitomer Conference. The circumstances of Gorkon's death directly lead to a frosty climate between the Federation and the Klingon Empire at that conference. Only a full explanation of the conspiracy behind his murder allowed for the successful negotiation of the Khitomer Accords, which normalized relations between the two governments after years of hostility.

czechout@fandom    06:04: Wed 12 Oct 2011 
To me, that seems too much like an essay; I was under the impression that the lead was meant to be sort of a summarized, succinct introduction to the article. --Defiant 12:24, October 12, 2011 (UTC)
The proposed paragraph is also guilty of assuming foreknowledge. I'd be more inclined to accept something like the following:
Gorkon was the Chancellor of the Klingon High Council in 2293. He notably pursued peaceful relations with the United Federation of Planets, but was murdered just prior to the start of the Khitomer Conference. Only a full explanation of a conspiracy behind his murder allowed for successful negotiation of the Khitomer Accords, which normalized relations between the two governments after years of hostility.
As for the disambig, I agree that it's messy. Might a disambiguation page be in order, I wonder(?) --Defiant 13:02, October 12, 2011 (UTC)
I've now changed the disambig & lead. The proposed paragraph only specified one of the "two governments", so I added a reference (and link) to the Klingon Empire. I also tried to retain another element of the previous version (aside from the first sentence) by starting the second sentence with "In this capacity...." I'm still unsure about the disambig. Would the creation of a disambig page be an appropriate measure, or is it fine as it currently is? --Defiant 13:47, October 12, 2011 (UTC)
Someone's changed the disambig quite nicely, I think. That's two more objections out of the way, as far as I'm concerned. (I guess we're kinda ignoring the strict letter of the FA nom process by keeping this listed well after it should have been removed, but that's cool by me. I want to get it to the point where it can be featured.)
czechout@fandom    03:27: Thu 13 Oct 2011 
Objecting to this article based to the format of the disambiguation templates is not a valid reason, since it has nothing to do with just this article. If you wish to discuss the purposed solution to the current format, you can do so here. - Archduk3 08:36, October 13, 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Whichever method is used for the disambig is too unrelated to this specific article, CzechOut; that's it's own issue. Thanks for your input regarding the disambig method, Archduk. --Defiant 08:43, October 13, 2011 (UTC)
I still think the term "eventually" should be added, as the text stands now before normalized relations (...), for the reasons I've stated that we don't really know what happened between VI and TNG ("Yesterday's Enterprise" comes to mind as a period when detente was in a slump), just a thought--Sennim 15:20, October 13, 2011 (UTC)
No problem, Sennim. :) That addition has now been made. --Defiant 18:40, October 17, 2011 (UTC)
Support, Defiant has worked hard to address all issues raised, and I like the article as it now stands--Sennim 11:48, October 19, 2011 (UTC)

Comment. CzechOut, there is no hard time limit on nominations. They can be resolved after seven days of inactivity, but it is not required. If there was no work going on to improve the article, then sure- but there was in this case.--31dot 12:05, October 19, 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think that "can be resolved" should be understood as "generally, they really should be resolved" after such time of inactivity, so that clearly unsuccessful nominations aren't kept alive artificially - in which case, the 8-day long inactivity between October 4 and 12 would have led to a negative resolve just like CzechOut hinted at. While keeping this one probably is acceptable as long as it doesn't become the norm, I see that there are still unresolved objections and, on top of that (and unless I counted wrong), still not enough votes overall to consider this nomination successful - after 27 days and severe changes which make this article somewhat "unstable"! Perhaps it would be better to remove this nomination for now and renominate it later. If that doesn't happen, it would make this a very weak "best article" in my opinion. -- Cid Highwind 12:40, October 19, 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think our opinions on this issue relate to the larger issue of about how much "issue-resolving" is permitted within the context of an FA discussion(the idea of "objections being resolved" seems to conflict with "article must be stable")- which has been brought up before- and should be part of a larger revamping of the entire FA process which you've touched on before and I think is worth discussing.--31dot 13:23, October 19, 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I agree with the observation that the page is probably now "too unstable" to be featured, so I favor a week-long period of inactivity if all objections have been resolved (which, as far as I can see, they have been). However, I also agree that the issue of stability vs. resolving objections merits some further discussion, though that's a more general policy discussion which should be held elsewhere (if held at all). If there are any objections still to be resolved about this particular article, I'd ask that they be pointed out. If there aren't, I plan to renominate the article following the proposed period of inactivity. --Defiant 13:56, October 19, 2011 (UTC)

Per the policy there is a 14-day period before a renomination. This should probably be archived and I will later today unless someone else does.--31dot 14:50, October 19, 2011 (UTC)

But shouldn't we clarify, first, whether the objections have been satisfied? It just seems a bit too up-in-the-air, otherwise. --Defiant 15:02, October 19, 2011 (UTC)

Though I have always thought this to be a worthy FA, I agree with Cid that it might be better for such potential status to come back and do the process again, otherwise it could be open for potential FA removal later.--31dot 15:06, October 19, 2011 (UTC)

Well, I agree, as I've tried to explain. But I think we should leave this discussion here for at least 7 days, allowing CzechOut the chance to add to it (specifying whether he finds his objections resolved or not) and possibly others if they have other objections, before another two or three weeks (during which time, this discussion will be archived and the article will be allowed to return to a state of stability). --Defiant 15:11, October 19, 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think that can take place on the article's talk page or a peer review; however I am now too personally involved to archive this so I won't.--31dot 15:21, October 19, 2011 (UTC)

FA nomination (16 Nov - 26 Nov 2011, Successful) Edit

I'd like to renominate this article. It has not only been nominated once previously, but has now had two peer reviews (the latter of which was last commented upon 2 weeks ago), so I reckon that, by now, it should be up to scratch. I still personally believe the article is well written and thoroughly covers the topic of Gorkon. Thanks to everyone who has contributed to it. --Defiant 10:50, November 16, 2011 (UTC)

  • Support, as I did before.--31dot 11:35, November 16, 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, I did so before the "tinkering", only fair I do so after it;)--Sennim 12:27, November 16, 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. - Archduk3 18:16, November 16, 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Tom 21:17, November 16, 2011 (UTC)
  • Support: Much better, though perhaps we could also include a quotes section? He did have some good lines in the movie. Regardless, my support stands. --| TrekFan Open a channel 22:30, November 16, 2011 (UTC)
Comment: Why you didn't bring this idea of a quotes section up during the multiple peer reviews or the earlier FA nomination beats me. But that's okay (besides, maybe you just thought of it, or something). Aside from the point of wanting to avoid an issue of lack-of-stability, I personally find it hard to see what the quotes section would add that isn't already available in either the in-universe portion of this article, or in the "memorable quotes" part of the page about Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. Thanks for the votes already cast. If there's anyone else who would also like to contribute their say to this (even if it is an "oppose" vote), please feel free to go right ahead. :) --Defiant 00:19, November 17, 2011 (UTC)
What's with the attitude? Could it be that I possibly haven't been on Memory Alpha for two or three weeks and thus didn't have a chance to comment in the peer review? I was just making a suggestion and you will notice that I still offered my supporting vote. Next time I won't bother. --| TrekFan Open a channel 01:12, November 17, 2011 (UTC)
Defiant, TF still supported it despite his suggestion; and even FAs can be improved after the fact. TF, the last nomination of this article was (in short) derailed by another user who was here intermittently without participating in peer reviews or other requests for comment so Defiant might be feeling a bit frustrated. In any event, further comment not related to this nomination should take place elsewhere.--31dot 01:28, November 17, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I'll admit that's the truth of the situation (though, in all honesty, I tried my utmost to not let that frustration seep into my reply, which was very hard). I did try to relate that I'm happy you made the suggestion, TF, and thanked everyone (including you) for having voted. I recognize that the suggestion has very little to do with the last FA nomination process, and I feel quite grateful for the idea having been submitted, as 31dot's right again – it can potentially help progress the article after-the-fact, which I was aware of at the time of writing the reply. All in all, no offense was meant, TF, and I did appreciate you contributing the suggestion. I'd suggest, though, that nitpicks and/or further ideas not be submitted here, unless to back-up an "oppose" vote. Any other suggestions can be posted on the talk page. --Defiant 01:39, November 17, 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a well-rounded article and a worthy candidate for FA status.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 01:58, November 17, 2011 (UTC)
Note: second part of Cleanse's comment as well as replies to that split off to Memory Alpha Talk:Featured article policies#Split from FA nomination. -- Cid Highwind 11:04, November 17, 2011 (UTC)
Returning the topic to this particular nomination, I also consider CzechOut's comments to have been helpful (I did thank everyone who has contributed to the article, implying that I was also including him/her). I still have a problem of unnecessary duplication regarding the idea of a Gorkon quotations bit, since he's in only one movie, so any and all quotes that could be arranged in a dedicated section on this page would (or should) already be available on the Star Trek VI page. We try to avoid unnecessary duplication, between pages, wherever possible/suitable, which I think is applicable in this matter. --Defiant 10:23, November 17, 2011 (UTC)
Featured, waiting on Forum:Overhaul of PR, FA, & AotW for archiving and listing at MA:FA. - Archduk3 01:41, November 26, 2011 (UTC)

References Edit

References please! -- Redge 17:18, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Just out of curiousity... why do we need references? Is that a rule? Ottens 17:47, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST)
Yes, it's always important to reference with episodes and/or movies the information is coming from! Our articles are useless otherwise! -- Dan Carlson 17:59, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST)
I should have phrased it more clearly. Are references necessarily to be put between "( )" within the text, or can you just list them at the bottom of the article...? Ottens 18:01, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST)
I would prefer the former. That way, if someone wants to know where the depicted info came from, it's only a click away, and you don't have to visit all the botom references. Alternatively, two is a nice way to. Then you get the same bonus I already mentioned, and a complete list of relative episodes. -- Redge 19:06, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST)

May I ask why a sidebar is unnecessary?Rebelstrike2005 19:27, 24 Feb 2005 (GMT)

Does it actually say in the film that he's only been Chancellor since 2291?

I don't believe it does. I certainly can't remember any dialogue telling us when he came to power. I'll remove it. Dave 23:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


is the redirect at the top really necessary? that's a bit of a stretch. you might have been looking for gorkon, gorgan, al gore, gold ore or just go look for words that start with g.

Name Edit

  • The name "Gorkon" is a blending of the last names Mikhail Gorbachev and Abraham Lincoln, two of director Nicholas Meyer's models for the character of the Klingon chancellor.

Does anyone know if there is any truth to it? — Morder 03:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it, but I suppose its possible. It should certainly not be in the article until its cited.--31dot 09:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Since it's gone uncited for a while it's archived here. — Morder (talk) 21:27, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

Removed Edit

I removed a sentence that reads, "Palance had to turn it down, as it conflicted with the filming of the movie City Slickers." This is credited to the book Captains' Logs: The Unauthorized Complete Trek Voyages (p. 141). However, I can't find the claim in that book. Furthermore, it's actually contradicted by Star Trek Movie Memories (p. 297), as that source claims the reasoning for Palance not being cast was because he "proved highly expensive as well as mildly ambivalent." --Defiant 23:15, August 17, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's my bad. I mistakenly thought your incite was merely for the idea that Jack Palance was wanted, which is indeed reflected by p. 141 of the book. The quote in Captains' Logs is consistent with the Movie Memories quote you mention - "There were some people that we wanted that we couldn't afford. In the long run it may have worked out for the best, because I think David Warner is extraordinary in the movie, which would have been totally different from Jack Palance." –Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 01:58, August 18, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Cleanse, and for clearing this issue up for me, somewhat. --Defiant 06:49, August 18, 2011 (UTC)

Peer review Edit

This article seems to be of potential FA status (at least, IMO). I'd appreciate any constructive comments, to find out if there's any other ways to improve it. --Defiant 13:44, September 2, 2011 (UTC)

More background information can be found here. --| TrekFan Open a channel 14:51, September 2, 2011 (UTC)

Brilliant! :) Thanks for that. I've now included some info from that webpage (although some of it just duplicates what is already here, so I've left those bits out). Any more comments? --Defiant 17:00, September 2, 2011 (UTC)

Well researched and a lot of information. I think there is nore more to add. Tom 19:07, September 2, 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the previous user. As stated on earlier occasions I'm not that well versed what in-universe sections are concerned, but judging from the bg-section. I think a FA nomination is warranted. On a personal note and by no means intended as criticism, personally I think the quote "He owned a bone cane and a silvery necklace that he occasionally wore." in the preamble comes across as a bit too "flippant" (for lack of a better word) or as too "irrelevant" (again for lack of a better word) for a preamble and is more at its place somewhat further in the text. Then again this is perhaps a matter of personal taste...--Sennim 12:24, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, probably the latter. The rest of the article deals with the character in an historical light, whereas the opening paragraph is not specific to chronology/scenes, much like the majority of the bg info section (with the exception of how his death was thought up). --Defiant 09:32, September 9, 2011 (UTC)

Peer review 2 Edit

Since this is now not going to be a FA at this time, and this conversation is waiting for more input, I've archived it to the peer review. If CzechOut doesn't reply in a week, I would suggest placing a notice about this on his talk page. - Archduk3 19:46, October 19, 2011 (UTC)

Already done. If he doesn't answer (and other problems/potential objections aren't raised here), I'll opt to wait the required 14 days of inactivity before renominating this. --Defiant 20:57, October 19, 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder that I needed to get back over here :) I'd say that my initial objections have been largely addressed. I'd like to thank the community, and particularly Defiant for taking them seriously. Here's what I got left:
  • The dab note. I'm sorry, but I don't accept that it's not a valid FA criticism to fuss over the dab. The featured article criteria says in line 1 that "Featured articles are supposed to be examples of Memory Alpha's best work, often showcased on the main page." It doesn't give any exceptions, there. No rule specifically exempts dab notes from consideration, so we must assume that even the dab notes must be examples of the community's best work. The rules say nothing about categories, either, but would we really give FA status to an article that had the cats category:FruFru the Clown and category:Episodes that sucked? Prolly not. The dab, as it stands as of the timestamp below, is not the best the community can do. That should not be held up as an exemplar of how to do a two-target dab. Sorry, but that's a ridiculous amount of vertical height to give a simple dab note. One sentence is all that's required, and one sentence is where we were at last time I contributed to the thread.
  • Stability. The very act of making the article has now, technically, made the article "unstable". It's ironic, but, yeah, I suppose if we were to follow the rules to the letter, we'd have to wait, as Archduk3 says, for 14 days to renominate.
If I can make a side note here, it might be to the community's advantage to define the words "the last few weeks" a bit in the last bullet point at Memory Alpha:Featured article criteria. Way upthread I was told that "a few weeks" equalled three, so maybe that should actually be put in writing.
Those being my only two outstanding objections, if I were asked today whether the article should be given FA status, I'd say yes — if ya fix the dab note back to how it was about a week ago. But I suppose we're two weeks away from a renom and then a week on top of that for the nom process to actually come to a conclusion. As we've seen by how much this article has changed in that amount of time, who knows if I'll feel the same once the article actually comes back under the question again.

czechout@fandom    21:41: Wed 19 Oct 2011 

Well, quite frankly, any objection based on the disambiguation templates format is going to be disregarded, since that has nothing to do with this article. That's like saying you oppose this because you disagree with the formatting of the {{USS}} template. As I've said before, you're free to add to the discussion on the suggestion for changing the disambiguation templates, but this article will not be held up simply because there is "no rule specifically exempt[ing] dab notes from consideration". We don't need to point out every exception or clarify guidelines that are intentionally suppose to be vague, so as to avoid instruction creep, it should be enough that several people here agree that the spirit of the guideline covers just the content of the article, not things that are controlled elsewhere. - Archduk3 22:16, October 19, 2011 (UTC)

I've personally found, repeatedly, that "a few" is generally considered as being 3 or 4. I don't see the need for specifying something most people know already. --Defiant 22:44, October 19, 2011 (UTC)
But the dab objection wasn't a protest about a template. To be honest with you, I've never investigated the coding of the page at Gorkon. I wasn't even aware a template was at work. My objection was based on whether it makes any stylistic sense to break up a simple sentence into two paragraphs. That's a legitimate concern, when the rules actually do enjoin us to make FAs examples of our best work. Are you saying there's a rule somewhere that stipulates that we're obliged to use the dab templates as they exist? If there is such a rule, then obviously I withdraw the objection. If, on the other hand, we're not forced to use the dab templates, then the objection stands.
Also, specificity does not necessarily equal instruction creep. You're saying that it's enough that the people here "know the deal". Is it though? Don't you want new blood? If the instructions contained just two more letters (change few to three), those of us "not in the know" wouldn't waste our time objecting.
It seems to me that there is a point at which the avoidance of instruction creep actually works to the detriment of clarity. You guys may be old hands at the FA process on MA, but I'm not, nor is the latest editor who registered here. The first question I had after reading the rule was, "well, how many weeks is a few?"
Now, of course I understand that you might not want absolute specificity. But at least say "about a month" so that new users have some idea of the time frame. Contextually, "a few weeks" can mean anything. If you're talking about a product launch, or the time until you get your master's degree, 12 weeks is really just around the corner. If you tell an 8-year-old that it's 12 weeks til Christmas, that's an eternity. "About a month" means roughly the same thing to people in all these situations.
czechout@fandom    21:15: Fri 21 Oct 2011 
Since I have not been involved in this discussion, I feel I can provide fresh input into the discussion. I am in agreement with Czech regarding the "a few weeks" comment. Perhaps it could be changed to something along the lines of "about a month"? R.E. the disambig template (I assume by "dab" you mean this), I think that would come under the "personal preference" category of the FA voting rules, since you can't get it right with everyone. I, for one, think the disambig template is fine and having a separate link on each line makes it clear and easy to read when you first visit the page. If multiple disambig links are clumped up in one paragraph, it makes navigation harder, in my opinion. Saying that, I do respect Czech's opinion on it but I believe this issue is more of a personal preference one and not something that should be outlined specifically in the FA rules. --| TrekFan Open a channel 21:55, October 21, 2011 (UTC)
If we must discuss what "a few" means or if something else should be written in its place, let's do it elsewhere and confine this discussion to the peer review, please.
Yes, purely personal stylistic preferences are not valid grounds for a FA objection, according to the Nomination Policy. It can still be a "best article" nonwithstanding the template use.--31dot 01:31, October 22, 2011 (UTC)

Since we aren't discussing the word "few" elsewhere apparently, I'll place this here for future reference:

As the user who added the "few weeks" statement to the policy, I can tell you the time frame was suppose to be around two or three weeks, the shortest time frame needed to end a peer review and the general amount of time a PR actually takes. This can be seen here in my statement that adding the word few "should also resolve the differences between the renomination process and the PR process". Since the word "couple" is generally defined as "two", while the word "few" is defined as a "small number", that word was chosen so as to not be below or beyond the time frame of a PR, which is when changes should be made.

That said, are there any other comments about this article? - Archduk3 13:37, November 2, 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm currently reading through Nicholas Meyer's autobiography The View from the Bridge - Memories of Star Trek and a Life in Hollywood, as fast as I can, to check out if there's more bg info on Gorkon in it (and the details, if so). There therefore could be more info to add but, if so, I don't imagine it'll be much. However, I'd still prefer that we wait before renomination, at least until I've completed that process. --Defiant 14:13, November 2, 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I've now done that. --Defiant 15:45, November 2, 2011 (UTC)