Ad blocker interference detected!
Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers
Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.
FA status Edit
Nomination (14 Mar - 25 Mar 2005, Success) Edit
- Support, Very expertly written. — THOR 15:11, 16 Mar 2005 (EST)
Reconfirmation (05 Dec - 20 Dec 2011, Failed) Edit
I'm actually unsure about what is supposed to happen if I bring up an article for reconfirmation and oppose that myself, but here it is: I don't think that Landru should be an FA any longer. As can be seen in this diff, there haven't been any serious changes to this article between early 2005 and now. The article is a huge block of text without any internal structure like various sections (except for a small "see also" at the end); the initial sentence is too short, and not followed by a proper definition of "Landru" either. The prose of the following text is uninspired at best, nothing that really stands out as "good work". The background note at the end borders on the speculative. There could be some more proper background information if this is supposed to be a "really great" article. -- Cid Highwind 18:38, December 5, 2011 (UTC)
- Remove the FA status. I agree with Cid.--31dot 00:54, December 6, 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose reconfirmation/remove FA status. Pretty much as Cid says, the article is a big bland block of text. As for background, I flipped through a few reference books but couldn't find anything to add. The existing bg note should be removed, as there's no evidence the Borg were influenced at all by Landru. That being the case, it's just a random "some fans" opinion.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 07:33, December 6, 2011 (UTC)
- I should note that this system doesn't replace the FA removal one, just that this "forces" a reconfirmation. The idea is any minor changes needed after two years can be done (or better yet already were), but articles which have gone this far downhill (or in this case have been left behind) would hopefully be removed before they get here. That said, I'm opposing reconfirming this one, for the reasons already stated. We've most likely going to be too busy with the backlog to save articles that need this much work. - Archduk3 08:34, December 6, 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose reconfirmation for the reasons already stated. The article needs a larger overhaul than mere fixing minor shortcomings--Sennim 13:03, December 9, 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: The parallel I've made between Landru and the Borg is indeed a personal observation. Similar observations have been made in the bg info section for Telek R'Mor, though (unlike here) those haven't been opposed, so we should decide whether to accept such observations and then act on that decision. --Defiant 13:52, December 9, 2011 (UTC)
The difference is that one is an extrapolation based purely on canon facts, and the other is at least baseless speculation, and even wrong the way it is currently phrased. Landru never was a "precursor" to the Borg. -- Cid Highwind 14:07, December 9, 2011 (UTC)
- They're both speculative, but I can sort of see what you mean by your point about taking into accent the basis of the speculation. As for your point about it being "even wrong," I disagree with this. If you look here, you'll see that dictionary.com's first definition of precursor is "a person or thing that precedes, as in a job, a method, etc.; predecessor." Both in the canon of the Star Trek franchise and in its production history, Landru was (at least, in this context) indeed a precursor of the Borg. Though I don't accept "wrong," I'd probably accept "misleading." Regardless, we should check whether there's basis for this observation having been made elsewhere (e.g. by production staff), then decide on this particular case. --Defiant 14:20, December 9, 2011 (UTC)
- One more thing I'd like to point out is that the Borg/Landru similarity is not "baseless." Just like the speculations on the R'Mor page, the parallel is based on observations of the canon evidence. But I understand if there's some bias towards accepting observation of facts, over behavioral observations. --Defiant 14:26, December 9, 2011 (UTC)
But "precursor" (or "predecessor") implies some sort of deliberate evolution from one to the other. Indeed, if some production info can be found that basically states "we remembered that TOS guy Landru, and we wanted to create something along the same lines and got the Borg", then we can call Landru a precursor. If that production info does not exist (meaning that we must assume that no such idea was the reason for creating the Borg), it would be baseless speculation and wrong to imply as much. -- Cid Highwind 14:28, December 9, 2011 (UTC)
- I think the "wrong" part is imposing an implication on the word that is not stipulated in its dictionary definition, though – as I attempted to imply – I'll accept that others may make the same mistake, if it's a common error. A rewording, at the very least, should be made, IMO (obviously, deletion if no source can be cited). --Defiant 14:41, December 9, 2011 (UTC)
If you want to rephrase that bit, please go ahead. In the end, whether this is outright wrong or "just" misleading and uncited doesn't matter much. It's still something worthy of "valid opposition" as far as its FA reconfirmation here is concerned - and on top of that, it's not the only thing that this reconfirmation is being opposed for. So, again: please feel free to enhance this article by adding whatever changes you deem appropriate. I'll let everyone know if that changes my opinion here. -- Cid Highwind 15:14, December 9, 2011 (UTC)
- No problem, Cid. :) --Defiant 15:33, December 9, 2011 (UTC)
- I haven't been able to find any citation for the parallel, and I doubt any exists. While consequently removing it, I've added some more bg info. I'd be interested to find out what others now think of that part of the article. --Defiant 18:39, December 9, 2011 (UTC)
- The lack/delay of comments here isn't very helpful, IMO. Another issue with this page is that I keep wondering if it might be better if the page was actually split into two – one article for the historical Landru, and another for the AI. Some feedback on this idea and/or the new bg info section would be much appreciated, regardless of whether it's positive or negative feedback. --Defiant 02:03, December 11, 2011 (UTC)
I think the point here is, as Archduk3 already stated, that we're "too busy with the backlog to save articles that need this much work" - meaning that some of us don't want to invest that much time for individual details of an article if the whole article is crap. I don't believe you will manage to bring this article to nowadays FA standards (and get all opposition resolved) within the "allowed" timeframe of 2 to 6 weeks - and the latter amount of time would probably mean that this discussion has been kept artificially alive, anyway. It would be much more fair to all people involved (and the article itself), if all this discussion was eventually moved to the article talk page, and (much later) another attempt at making the new article an FA was made. -- Cid Highwind 11:25, December 11, 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I personally don't see what's keeping this article from remaining as an FA, apart from apparently baseless and purely subjective opinion (words like "crap", etc.) So, if there's still problems with the page, I think those should be spelled out more clearly. As it stands, I don't see any substantial reason to remove its FA status (besides pleasing the whims of the "community"). --Defiant 13:26, December 11, 2011 (UTC)
- The article is a huge block of text without any internal structure
- the initial sentence is too short, and not followed by a proper definition of "Landru" either.
- The prose of the following text is uninspired at best, nothing that really stands out as "good work".
I don't really see how that can be considered either "purely subjective opinion" or "not spelled out clearly enough". -- Cid Highwind 13:44, December 11, 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I may have just been getting lost in all the text here. IMO, you've admirably clarified the issues still remaining with the article, so thanks for that. :) I'll oppose the page remaining as an FA, for the time being. --Defiant 13:48, December 11, 2011 (UTC)
- What is stopping you from adding it? This is a wiki, after all... --OuroborosCobra talk 06:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed. Furthermore, if you have questions regarding individual pages, please take it up on that page's talk page. Thanks. – Cleanse 06:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm new here, thus I'm unable to add this to a category. Can you ? 22.214.171.124 06:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)