Talk:USS Equinox
From Memory Alpha, the free Star Trek reference.
Contents |
[edit] Featured status
[edit] FA nomination
Self-nomination. A detailed analysis of the ship's voyage - IMO, a change from the (somewhat necessarily) formulaic nature of the starship entries. -- Michael Warren 00:51, 1 Jun 2004 (CEST)
- Seconded. Nice detail for a "generic" starship article. -- Dan Carlson 16:35, 1 Jun 2004 (CEST)
-
Opposed. It's a very good article, especially for a ship only mentioned in two eppisodes. However, the ammount of info available is irrelevant when featuring an article. And IMO this article does not messure up with the rest of the featured articles. No offence, how could it with so little info to go on. It's good, but not good enough to be featured.-- Redge 15:39, 5 Jun 2004 (CEST)
-
The article is not of the same type as other featured articles, so should not be compared with them. I believe this article meets the majority of criteria that are covered in Memory Alpha:The perfect article. On amount of info available and length, I refer you to the point This may not be possible for all articles, of course, because information may not be available for all aspects of the subject. However, where such information is available, it should always be included. -- Michael Warren 18:31, 5 Jun 2004 (CEST)
- I still think that this article qualifies for Featured Article status. As long as it's well-written and of reasonable length, I think it's acceptable. (Articles that are just two or three paragraphs wouldn't be long enough, IMO, but something longer should.) -- Dan Carlson 16:25, 8 Jun 2004 (CEST)
- In that case I'd say it's a great article and I'll second it for featured article. -- Redge
[edit] This entry *really* about the Equinox?
This rather lengthy entry seems to more of an episode synopsis than about the ship itself. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.103.154.140 (talk). I think this entry needs to be edited down dramatically. Move the majority of the contents to the episodes Equinox I & II.
- I think it is excessively long and detailed as well. I do not have the skill to do anyhting about it though. Generalleoff 21:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- I added a PNA message, because I just thought the same thing while doing some copyedit. This is a featured article at the moment, so this content should probably be moved somewhere else, then that status be removed. -- Cid Highwind 17:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- I just edited the article to focus more on the USS Equinox. If nothing else, it's a start. – AJHayson 04:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Removal of featured status
I just made a thorough sweep of this articles page history and the page history for featured articles and this article was _never_ legitimately voted, much less nominated, for featured article. The tag was added a long time ago, but never the less, we do not have a grandfather clause to simply allow it to remain, not to mention how drastically the page has changed since it was tagged to justify keeping it as a featured article without going through the normal removal process. --Alan del Beccio 07:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
It seems I must recant the above statement, as I guess the two week scan of nominations prior to this addition was not "thorough" enough. After some further digging, I found that it was indeed nominated, legitimately, it just apparently took 44 days to add the featured template!!! I will now be readding the proper template. --Alan del Beccio 01:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] PNA/FA for over a year?
Either we should remove the PNA message, or remove this as a featured article. So, in the opinion of other users, has the PNA been addressed? The issue was that the article was too much an episode summary. It looks okay to me now, as the status of the ship was significant in the two episodes. I'm not sure it should be featured, but that's a discussion for if it is listed. So let's get some action here.
Note: I'm aware the FA tag hasn't been on the article for a lot of that time, but both tags have been on the article still for many months.– Cleanse 10:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Given the overwhelming response I just removed the PNA. But if anyone thinks the article is not up to scratch, nominate it for FA removal.– Cleanse 23:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] From Memory Alpha:Featured article removal candidates
The USS Equinox article was self-nominated in June 2004 and did not meet today's criteria of nominating a featured article. According to the talk page, it was nominated, seconded, and received one additional vote only after having the criteria clarified by MA founder Dan Carlson.
To confuse things further, in November 2006, it was labeled PNA while still being labeled featured! Three months later, Alan questioned the legitimacy of the FA voting and removed the featured tag out of hand, but left the PNA. This is the way it was for nearly a year when records of the voting finally turned up. Alan archived the vote on the talk page and the FA tag was reinstated in February 2008. It still retained the PNA tag, though, until Cleanse removed the PNA two months later.
While I understand that this was a good article when it was written, it has had some major changes and issues with it in the four years since it was declared a featured article. Does it live up to the high standards we hold featured articles to today? – Topher 18:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. I think this article is still deserving of FA status. In my opinion, the article itself is detailed enough and there are a decent amount of images to compliment it. TrekFan 18:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with the removal suggestion. The very shaky "FA history" of this article makes it a bad example to present as "our best work". At least, it should have another FA nomination discussion, and this suggestion would be the first step for that... (For the record, I personally don't think that this is still "the best" we have to offer, in any case.) -- Cid Highwind 20:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support - I agree with Cid that the weak justification for remaining an FA would call for another nomination. I agree the article is not our best work today.– Cleanse 06:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support removal. I agree with Cid and Cleanse's words.--31dot 01:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Article removed from FA list, per majority.– Cleanse 05:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Info from plaque
The List of Dedication Plaques has some info on this ship that's not on this page. like where it was built. perhaps someone can add it, I'm really tired at the moment :) --Dalen 17:39, 12 Apr 2005 (EDT)
[edit] Voyager conspiracy
In the Voyager Conspiracy, Seven mentions that the Caretaker kidnapped several ships including a Galor Class Warship, which he sent back to the Alpha Quadrant. Its logical to assume that Voyager and the Val Jean arrived after the Equinox so way wasn't it sent back like the others. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.42.66.107 (talk).
[edit] Warp
Janeway clearly states the maximum warp is 8. I'm changing this, don't change it back (131.6.84.67 10:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC))