Talk:Elizabeth Cutler

Nomination
Elizabeth Cutler -- self-nomination. An article I feel safe in saying I 'fleshed-out' and am very proud of. It's been tweaked quite extensively since then, and I feel it meets FA qualifications. — THOR 23:29, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Ottens 21:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 23:17, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Mild oppose. I think it needs the references linked to the text they refer to, rather than having them at the foot of article. Once done, would be delighted to support. -- Michael Warren | Talk 23:27, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Rather than, or in addition to? — THOR 16:47, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Moot point now, I suppose; Defiant took the initiative and worked the article over quite well. Are those the inclusions you were referring to? — THOR 17:57, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree, it's not a moot point - the references at the bottom could still be removed. --Defiant | Talk 11:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

==

O...kay. and done. I just assumed when you made the edits of 20050515, you had changed/added/removed everything you wanted; but not the refrences section? — THOR 13:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Personally, I prefer the references section at the bottom of the page. My comment was regarding Michael Warren's criticism, not an indication of my own opinion. --Defiant | Talk 13:05, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * SupporrJaz 04:57, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Elizabeth Cutler -- Re-nomination - article was previously opposed due to missing episode references in the text. I have since added these, and can see no reason why the page should not be featured. --Defiant | Talk 22:15, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Support AmdrBoltz 22:24, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Support —  THOR 03:29, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Status
Deletion of a FA discussion with an oppose followed by a new discussion of the same article in one edit. I'm counting this a one FA discussion since there was no time when this article wasn't under consideration. Should be reconfirmed sooner rather than later. - 02:42, December 14, 2011 (UTC)

Reconfirmation

 * Blurb will be installed Tuesday ;)

I'm "adopting" this one from the list of problematic FA on the talk page. I have no current opinion about the article - other than the fact that it might be a little too short for nowadays standards and that its FA status might have had to do with the early demise of the actress at the time. -- Cid Highwind 13:12, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Short isn't a reason to remove FA status as long as the article meets the criteria, and I don't think why it was nominated matters all that much either in that case, though you're probably right in that regard Cid. In case anyone wants to take a look at the reasoning for the problematic listing, it can be found here, along with the original nomination. Also, we do already have a blurb for this one. ;) - 16:54, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * Support for very much the same reasons Duke stated. I like the easy readability of a "tertiary" semi-regular and frankly do not care why it was nominated as a FA...It is all there as far as I can discern, so for that matter I cast my vote...The one ,very minor thing, I've problem with is the placement of the Insignia thumb, c'mon that can be placed better--Sennim 18:48, January 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose'. The bg info seems currently quite lacking. I do have an issue of Star Trek: Communicator in which Kellie Waymire discusses the role, so I'll try to add info from that soon(ish!). --Defiant 01:11, January 7, 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, take your time. Thanks to your "oppose", this is now in need of a full treatment, anyway - so we'll just remove its FA status if "soonish" isn't fast enough. -- Cid Highwind 10:39, January 7, 2012 (UTC)


 * Is that meant to be sarcastic?! I'm not the only one with a computer, etc., and the Communicator magazine is publicly available! --Defiant 14:22, January 7, 2012 (UTC)


 * Where is it publicly available for free? - 14:37, January 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * Is that meant to be a rhetorical question? --Defiant 14:43, January 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. I'm saying provide a link if it is, if it isn't, not everyone is going to have that information, and since it's out of print I don't know where one could go get it. Simply asking for time to add that information, which people use to do quite a lot once, is far better than opposing an article over missing information only you and a few others have access to, especially if you're not sure of the content, plan to add it shortly (or don't plan to add it at all yourself), and don't want to spend the time polling other users to provided the other three support votes now needed. - 14:53, January 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * In all honesty, you make very little sense to me. Anyways, I've now added the info. The oppose was only ever temporary; sorry if I didn't completely spell that out! I'm happy to remove the momentary oppose now which, as you can see from the above, I have done. --Defiant 15:29, January 7, 2012 (UTC)


 * Have you even read the reconfirmation policy? Do you understand that YOU have complicated this process for something as small as a few hours? You haven't even answered my question, so I'm just going to assume that the Communicator isn't publicly available, and that you have no idea what you've done. - 23:29, January 7, 2012 (UTC)


 * And all that for so little gain, too. I'm not sure how having a ton of quotes by the actress, basically stating something along the lines of "Nobody knew where this character was going to go - not me, and surely not the writers." is supposed to make the article better, or more complete for that matter. I'm not even sure all of that really belongs there instead of, for example, the article about Kellie Waymire herself. -- Cid Highwind 23:51, January 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not really interested in your tantrums, guys. It's obviously too hard for you to face the truth – that I've improved the article, by making the bg info somewhat more substantial than just a few lines. I have indeed read through the reconfirmation policy, and I find nothing that vetoes what I've done. If there were, it'd probably be the policy at fault, since a policy that doesn't allow for improvements and further developments where they are warranted likely wouldn't be a very good policy! --Defiant 02:13, January 8, 2012 (UTC)


 * This isn't a tantrum, this is you clearly not understanding the policy or what is being said, so I hope this article is able to find another three support votes now that you felt the need to "improve" it by making it harder to reconfirm for no fraking reason, and can't even be bothered to support it yourself. - 02:20, January 8, 2012 (UTC)


 * Calm down; it's only a lame Star Trek site! ;) You're also assuming a lot; I have no problem with adding a support vote for this article. In fact, I thought I did that earlier, but I guess I forgot. And I'm willing to do anything I can to help find the required 2 other support votes. But further developing an article and raising its quality should never be frowned down upon; that's just silliness. It shouldn't be about just getting the article through the reconfirmation process ASAP, but finding ways to improve the articles and make them as good as possible, damn the consequences! --Defiant 02:38, January 8, 2012 (UTC)


 * Back on topic: I have a few concerns about the article. First, as Cid alluded to, some of the quotes added are more appropriate to Kellie Waymire rather than here. In particular, I suggest that everything in the first paragraph of bg info should be moved there. However, I think the other two paragraphs are fine as they are relevant to the character.


 * Second, the sentence "Cutler wore a rank insignia of a crewman (first class) on her uniform." at the end of "Professional life" doesn't really connect to the rest of the article. It's also a weird way to state that she had that rank. Somewhere towards the beginning of the article it should simply state that Cutler's rank was Crewman (first class). The accompanying picture should then be ditched, since this is an article about Cutler, not "Crewman (first class)". Other than that, I think this is a pretty solid article on a minor character, and I will support this if these two concerns are addressed.–Cleanse ( talk 02:53, January 8, 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I don't think it'll be as hard to pass this through the reconfirm process than some have made out. --Defiant 03:03, January 8, 2012 (UTC)


 * You'll excuse me if I'm a little upset with the fact we have nearly 140 articles to go though and the only means of expediting that process was removed for the sake of less than 12 hours of "breathing room" that wasn't even needed. Opposing an article on those grounds in unconstructive, since as I've said simply asking for the time would have sufficed. If that needs to spelled out in the policy, it can be, but I would have expected long time users to keep the big picture in mind and not require an excessive amount of instruction. If Defaint is so ready to better these articles, he can start start a reconfirmation himself. It be nice if we could all work on the overall solution as well as the articles themselves. I'm not "frowning upon" why you did it, I'm frowning upon how you did it.
 * As for removing the section and moving the rank info, I agree. - 05:35, January 8, 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - done.–Cleanse ( talk 06:06, January 8, 2012 (UTC)


 * Still needs one more support. Any takers? - 05:31, January 16, 2012 (UTC)


 * Support --Pseudohuman 06:43, January 16, 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - I think this article deserves the featured status. Tom 19:42, January 16, 2012 (UTC)

The Expanse
In "The Xindi", or season 2 finale, didn't some of the crew rotate off the ship when it returned to earth? I can't remember one way or the other, but if so, maybe the paragraph should read
 * "In 2153 when the Xindi attacked earth, she was a member of the crew that decided to remain aboard after it's refit. In September of that year, Crewman Cutler was apparently working in the exobiology lab when she suffered a broken arm due to a manifested spatial anomaly (which was the result of the Enterprise's voyage through the Delphic Expanse)."

Something to that effect anyway. -AJHalliwell 23:41, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Should this be removed?

 * It has been speculated that the episode "The Forgotten", which centers on the death of a relatively minor crewman, may be a reference or tribute to Kellie Waymire.

I was going to remove this as speculation, but I wanted to discuss it here on the talk page first. --| TrekFan Open a channel 16:51, August 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * Just remove it. This is a FA, and that status doesn't need to be removed over this. - 16:55, August 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * Killed it. If there's some citation for this, it should be added and the section reworded before it's returned to the article. - 17:19, August 22, 2011 (UTC)

Ms. Waymire's death
While Ms. Waymire's death is mentioned, its cause is not. She died of "undiagnosed cardiac arrhythmia likely related to mitral valve prolapse, a condition she was diagnosed with as a teenager." [ http://www.startrek.com/database_article/waymire]. Also, Wikipedia provides the same info. ElizabethTlesTucker 12:32, April 24, 2012 (UTC)


 * This page is about the character. How the actress died isn't relevant to the character of Cutler. The manner of death is mentioned where it belongs, on Kellie Waymire.–Cleanse ( talk 13:08, April 24, 2012 (UTC)