Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Starfleet ranks and insignia/archive1

Debate on validity as Featured Article Candidate

Though I still loathe having to be the party pooper. Writing about Star Trek or certain aspects of it is very relevant due to its cultural impact. That we tolerate trekkies filling Wikipedia with enormous amounts of Star Trek-minutiae is also something I consider a must, but this FAC is an obvious abuse of this tolerance. I would certainly like to somehow include "No articles on meta-details of entertainment without general relevance to anyone but the fans themselves" in the criteria, but this is not reasonble since instruction creep is always a dangerous thing. I really don't think it should be necessary to point out that having FAs — our representation of the finest we have to offer to our readers — treating pure fictionalized details that that are relevant only to trekkies and only to the ranks themselves though it were an academic subject is very bad for our reputation. I can only hope that Husnock will understand my point here and use his competence to get his articles that deal with real-world armies and fleets like ranks and insignia of the Schutzstaffel to FA status instead. / Peter ^Isotalo 11:00, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

We've been over this already. "We" aren't "tolerating" Star Trek articles; the amount of detail you find on Wikipedia about obscure subjects is what makes Wikipedia even worth considering over printed, more easily verifiable, and more authoritative sources in the first place. I find your comment, which reeks of ill-advised conformism and conservatism, borderline insulting for anyone who's been involved in writing articles about fiction on Wikipedia. I doubt you would make "very critical comments" on a nomination about "purely fictionalized" world literature novels. I will not support this article because I feel it contains way too much low quality images for its own good, but people need to finally understand that even articles you wouldn't normally find in other reference works can have their place on the FA page. Phils 17:47, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent points from Phils. My own views is that this article is not about trekkies sitting in their basements watching Star Trek and engaged in a topic which no one else has any interest in in. This article is about society. The producers of Star Trek, over the past forty years, have developed a fictional military-like force in Starfleet and have written plots, series, and episodes that have woven and interlinked. The ranks and badges of this fictional group are of interest in how they have evoloved in this popular icon of American society. By last count, there were nearly 2 million people in the US alone who found Star Trek of interest. Now, these other points, sorry you don't like Star Trek but there is no law, rule, or regulation that I know of which states an article on a fictional subject can't be a featured article. I give you case in point: the article "Dalek". Dalek's aren't real (for the sake of the London, England population I hope not)! yet there it sits as a featured article. My final point, to be fair, I thank the user above for voicing a comment and not an object. That was a serious problem last time, with at least three people objecting to the article on inactionable grounds, saying they just didnt like it, and two people calling the article names. So, sorry you don't like Star Trek, sorry you don't really care for this article, but I will not withdraw the FAC nomination and hope that this at last is recognized for the work and time that has gone into it. -Husnock 18:19, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of fairness, as one of the principal editors that got Dalek up to speed when it was nominated (not by myself) for FA, I should point out that the Dalek has had real world impact - it is a word in the English dictionary, it is instantly recognisable in British popular culture, there are sections on the Dalekmania of the mid 1960s, why they were so iconic, their impact on Doctor Who's popularity and merchandising in addition to the fictional aspects. So there's more to it than purely fictional elements, and those real world elements are substantial enough to balance out the fictional ones. --khaosworks 22:22, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

If you cant tollerate trekkies you are discarding a lot of users. Stephen Hawking is a trekkie btw. We have episode details for star trek dr.who and various other fictional works such as shakesperes Hamlet. FAC means article is exceptionaly informative on topic. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 23:32, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was very, very clear last time that this is not about sci-fi or even Star Trek being invalid. It's about going into minutiae of fiction that is just not in the least bit academic and only barely encyclopedic (that means I wouldn't vote to delete it). Just like dalek, FACs on Mr. Spock, Klingon or even warp drive is certainly acceptable, but this it just not encyclopedic enough. The point is that it sheds little or no light on the Star Trek phonomena as whole.

And you're damned right that I most likely wouldn't protest about an FAC on major novels — as long as they didn't pick something as insignificant as costume of Farewell to arms, weapons of Lord of the Rings or lovers of Lolita, because that's on the exact same level of super-minutiae as this nomination. Accepting an article into Wikipedia is absolutely not the same as saying any one of these could become an FAC. We must have literally hundreds of thousands of articles, fiction and non-fiction, that couldn't make it in a million years. Hell, even my own specialty, linguistics, has gobs of articles that I would frown on if they were nominated for FAC even if I would never go so far as VfD:ing them.

Considering the controversy of this topic, you should all be a lot more humble, self-critical and forthcoming about suggestions for improvements instead of simply getting defensive and throwing wild and unfounded criticism around you. Most of the other people objecting have raised valid criticism, but have unfortunately done so in a quite uncivil fashion. It's however still up to the authors of the article and those nominating to convince those objecting of its suitability as an FA, not the other way around.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:43, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

I will state phrases from your own words: "minutiae of fiction", "not in the least bit academic", "barely encyclopedic", "sheds little or no light on the Star Trek phonomena". It is clear that you have some pretty strong feelings against the article but those statements above are not only untrue, very biased, but rather narrow-minded. As stated above, this article is about how the franchise of Star Trek has developed these ranks over the past forty years and has incorporated them into numerous television productions, literature sources, and films. I am sorry that you feel such for this article, as there is apparently nothing that will change your mind. In any event, your thoughts have been recorded here. To not tie up the vote page, I suggest further debates on this be moved to the discussion/talk page of the article itself. -Husnock 18:47, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's interesting to see that you respond to criticism of your work and concerns over the quality of future FACs by directing incivilities and personal attacks against me and accusing me of... well... lying. This despite my poiting out that Star Trek isn't the issue, but rather the extreme level of detail. I mean, seriously, who are you kidding about ranks being an indespensible part of Star Trek and the analysis of its culturual impact? Have you ever considered that your own fascination with ranks might be clouding your judgement just a tad? I think I've made my point, though. Good luck with the nomination.

Peter ^Isotalo 22:24, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone object to moving this debate to the discussion page of the article? I can also leave a link on this page to indicate the move. This entire section doesnt seem to be about objecting or supporting a featured article candidate, but rather whether or not the nomination should even have been made. Opinions? -Husnock 23:50, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ongoing discussion on the WP:FAC talk page about featured articles with "non-notable" or "obscure" subjects, if you wish to join in. (However, I did not intend to specifically discuss the ranks and insignia of Starfleet article; in fact, I don't support this FAC, I just do not agree with objections based on the subject). Phils 07:16, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an appropriate place to make this objection. The best place would be on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, I would suggest that if you believe this article is not notable enough to be an encyclopedia article then you list it. I would suggest that you make a note on the VfD that it is nothing personal, it is just a notability problem. I don't think you'll win however. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:15, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should move the comments about the article's validity to the talk page of the FAC page. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 15:24, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Later assesments

Sure its easy to tie star trek to the real world:

Several races such as the romulans represent the russians. Ferengi represents greedy (and perhaps too capitalist) humans.
The xindi attack represents sep-11th.
The bridge of kirks enterprise had racial and ethnic diversity. This was deliberate. In the mids of "commie phear" he had a russian on the bridge! As well as a japaneese, in the 60's scars of ww2 wasnt far away. At least on the general public. I can tie the insignia to the real world as well.

Who would care about US Navy ranks aside from the fans of US navy and US navy personel. Or the importance of a random ex-politican or any politician aside from "fans" of politics or political history. If you have an issue with whats relevant and what isnt, you should put articles on VfD. If it doesnt get deleted you cant be complaining about their relevance. FAC criteria does not have an objection against the Daleks. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:30, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If your objection of it being FAC is its notability feel free to VfD it, as if something isnt significant enough it does not belong to wikipedia. I cannot tell you why someone would want to for example read about gravity. People have theri reasons. Gravity is not a very discrete topic. Its a "notable" article what ever that means. Canada is also notable. I don't see the significance of US naval ranks or any ranks more significant than Starfleet ranks and insignia aside from being "real" ranks. Wikipedia supposed to be a knowlege database. FAC exists to elect well written articles, informative in content and looks right. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 19:30, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia supposed to be a knowlege database. No, Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, hence many of the objections to this article being featured. Ambi 28 June 2005 14:31 (UTC)