"Star Trek Expanded Universe talk:Featured articles/Archive"@en . "I honestly think that certain articles are no longer worthy of FA status, especially my rank page. Can some of them be voted to be removed from FA status? --Kevin W. Adm\u2022Tlk 21:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)"@en . "I honestly think that certain articles are no longer worthy of FA status, especially my rank page. Can some of them be voted to be removed from FA status? --Kevin W. Adm\u2022Tlk 21:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC) The ones before October 2006 weren't done under the FA policy, so I don't think they should be listed at all, really. --TimPendragon 22:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC) The Borg definitely shouldn't be there, since that's basically just an MA clone. --TimPendragon 22:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC) I'd say get rid of everything before November. None of those articles really deserve FA status. --Kevin W. Adm\u2022Tlk 22:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC) When I set this up - I went back though all changes I could find on the main page and \"reverse engineer\" what was considered (by Luke80) as Featured Articles and listed them here. It's part of STEU's \"past\" and I'm not sure if I'm ready to \"re-write\" history. I see both sides of the arguement and as of right now I'd rather save this to show how we have grown but if the community feels it should be \"updated/re-written\" I will support that as well. --Image:USS Enterprise Command Pin.png Sneg Admin\u2022Talk 22:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC) At least some kind of separation between the \"pre-policy\" and \"post-policy\" articles is necessary, I think, with a note saying something to the effect of \"these articles were given 'featured' status before any criteria had been set.\" --TimPendragon 22:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC) Not a bad idea. Will have to think about how to phrase it so it sounds nice. --Image:USS Enterprise Command Pin.png Sneg Admin\u2022Talk 17:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)"@en . .