User talk:Spencerian

From Battlestar Wiki, the free, open content Battlestar Galactica encyclopedia and episode guide
Revision as of 11:12, 13 July 2006 by Day (talk | contribs) (Scifi.com)

For discussions prior to January 1, 2006, click here.

For discussions prior to June 1, 2006, click here.

New Article: Emergency Jump Coordinates

Hey spenc, would you mind taking a look at the new Article? It´s my first one and I´m not very good at syntax yet. Looking forward to any kind of constructive criticism!

hey, thanks!

thanks for the praise! my next idea was to write a little piece for the FTL article, about the way that jump coordinates are actually calculated. this would be based upon the miniseries and scattered. what do you think?

Jump calculation stuff would be purely speculative since this hasn't been explained in the show in terms of technology. While the Colonials obviously have a spatial coordinate system to use for FTL, we the viewers haven't a reference that makes sense to us. Nor has the technical workings of this been explained. Keep in mind that BSG's magic works by avoiding technobabble for two reasons: (1), it's not realistic, and (2) describing technology in too much detail forces future stories to conform to that writing or write something else, causing continuity issues (Star Trek is filled with these issues). I advise not writing such an article. Oh, be sure to sign your comments. To do this, place four tilde characters (that's this: ~~~~) at the end of your comment. You can indent by placing a colon at the start of the paragraph. --Spencerian 11:41, 1 June 2006 (CDT)
Never mind...read your additions. You kept it to a logical framework and to episode details. Nice addition. Keep working on your wiki formatting and you'll do fine. Thanks! --Spencerian 11:50, 1 June 2006 (CDT)

New and Improved

Warning System Here. --Shane (T - C - E) 21:53, 3 June 2006 (CDT)

Thanks, Shane. I saw you working to make these warning tags yesterday. We should use them judiciously (that is, we should probably ask an admin to use them first), but it will help flag a user on what's going on without us causing misunderstandings. Thanks. --Spencerian 14:40, 4 June 2006 (CDT)
I updated the template. Check out the usage on the way it works. --Shane (T - C - E) 18:16, 6 June 2006 (CDT)
Will do. --Spencerian 11:03, 7 June 2006 (CDT)Done. They work as advertised. Hopefully won't have to use them often. Thanks much, Shane! --Spencerian 11:10, 7 June 2006 (CDT)

BW:SAC

Per my tlak page, thi s is the policy I am pointing out on the Computer page: BW:SC#Links_to_Episodes --Shane (T - C - E) 15:16, 23 June 2006 (CDT)

Thanks, Shane. You pointed out an issue I thought long resolved. I noted a proposed change to get this worked out for good on the SAC talk page. --Spencerian 16:03, 23 June 2006 (CDT)
Thanks for ackoldeging your mistake. I am changing the page until or if the policy takes effect. --Shane (T - C - E) 16:05, 23 June 2006 (CDT)

Reply

This is Homeworld616 and I'm replying to your message on my talk page. I don't know how this works, whether you go back to my user talk page or if I reply on yours, so in order to avoid making myself look like an introvert who doesn't respond to his messages, I left replies on both pages. Tell me if I'm doing something wrong.

Anyway, thanks for the compliments on the articles. Feels nice to have fellow fans who are atuned to the Colonies. About the Caprican news station, you're right. They never actually said the name. However, I base my findings on two facts: (1) When Baltar is being interviewed by Kellan Brody of In the Spotlight, if you look in the (I think) lower right-hand corner of the screen, you can see a white logo of a number 7 in the middle of a circle (that is the "booger" you were referring to?). (2) Brody makes a big deal about her show interviewing only Caprican headline-makers. Based on the logo's number and the pro-Caprican bias of the anchorwoman, the station's name must be Caprica 7. I can always change the name to Channel 7 if the community reaches the concensus that my findings for Caprica 7 aren't good enough, but I plan to leave the name just like it is. I'm going to check out those links you sent me. Contact me if you've got more stuff to talk about.

P.S. I recently posted a reformed article Unnamed Cities of Caprica. Check it out if this topic interests you. --Homeworld616 10:23, 28 June 2006 (CDT)

I think he may have seen it. (He's the man when it comes to "Conventionizing and concising.") --Steelviper 10:27, 28 June 2006 (CDT)
Well that would explain a whole ton of edits I found when I looked at the article yeasterday. I appreciate those edits, as they cleared up some errors I had unintentionally put in the article. --Homeworld616 10:31, 28 June 2006 (CDT)
Yep, all taken care of. "Boomer" is always the Galactica Sharon Valerii. Once she was "outed" and to avoid confusion, the convention I've pushed is to use "Caprica-Valerii" to distinguish from Boomer. Using "Boomer-Valerii" is redundant, or using "Boomer" to speak of any consciousnesses who isn't specifically the sleeper Valerii is just wrong, so... Yes, usually we just speak on one talk page, using the edit summary to "alert" others of a response. Marking the page by watching it can alert to changes faster from your watchlist. If it's really important that you see my response, I would make a short note on your page to flag your new message banner. --Spencerian 14:36, 28 June 2006 (CDT)

Trek BIOS Flash

Hey, man. I know you're a recovering Trek fan as well. I wondered if you'd seen this. Read the linked treatment (in pdf form). I got very excited reading it, then sad because it will likely never get made. I think this is exactly what the Trek universe needs. Ah well. --Day (Talk - Admin) 14:38, 29 June 2006 (CDT)

Chiming in; although I felt a "reboot" would be nice, it also sounded like a rehash of Kirk and Spock again. Granted, JMS is a talented writer and probably would have made it feel "fresh", but in principle it still just sounds like the same thing over and over again. I don't think JMS' idea was bad (it was better than what Berman and Braga were doing!) but not ultimatley a good choice. --The Merovingian (C - E) 17:15, 29 June 2006 (CDT)
Since you mention JMS, this idea wouldn't be related to this or has anyone heard anything else? --FrankieG 18:27, 29 June 2006 (CDT)
Problem is, the whole 'young kirk/spock' idea is old. Was bandied about in about '90/'91 before Trek VI came out. Everyone rejected it back then cause it would suck. My god i'm being blunt today! :D --Fordsierra4x4 20:04, 29 June 2006 (CDT)
Turns out JMS announcement is about this. Sounds like he may have finally hit the big time. However, it may lead Paramount to pursue him again. --FrankieG 20:48, 29 June 2006 (CDT)
Hm. I guess I have the same attitude about this as I did on RDM's announcement: I'll believe it when I see it. Star Trek's problem today is that there is (1) no continuity whatsoever, and (2) too many cooks. If I had fan-god powers, I'd have most of Viacom's executives and producers bundled with their lawyers and hurled ass-first into the nearest active volcano, and then I'd consider appointing as creative consultants some guys who have spent a lot of money making their own new adventures of the original ST series (with official approval from Paramount, surprisingly). This is a must-download; it almost makes me long for Star Trek again. Almost. I'm happy for JMS, too. It would be nice to let RDM do Star Trek. One Slashdot guy said, on the announcement of "Caprica": "If Ron Moore announced that he was bringing The Phone Book to the small screen, I'd watch it." --Spencerian 21:00, 29 June 2006 (CDT)
I just read that Slashdot discussion, and it is so much worse than even average Slasdot discourse that tears came to my eyes. I liked that your comment managed to pass default threshold, though, even if I was stunned to see it wasn't modded "Informative." --CalculatinAvatar(C-T) 02:16, 30 June 2006 (CDT)
Am I one of the only ones here who doesnt think that much of the Star Trek series, especially the orignial series?
  • Step 1: Orbit unchartered planet.
  • Step 2: Landing crew consisting of Captain Kirk, Spock, Bones, and Ensign Dave in a redshirt go to planet
  • Step 3: Crew come across mysterious "man in a suit" creature
  • Step 4: Ensign Dave gets eaten
  • Step 5: Crew finds out that local village made up of only hot women is being terrorised by the creature.
  • Step 6: The crew kill the creature
  • Step 7: Kirk makes out with hot alien woman
  • Step 8: Enterprise leaves orbit to find some other planet
Its the same plot every episode... Please dont kill me :( --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 03:17, 30 June 2006 (CDT)
Step 7 reminded of this. --FrankieG 07:23, 30 June 2006 (CDT)
Ain't that place fun, Frankie?
You hit the nail on the head, Mercifull; it WAS the same plot points. I can distill things better, though:
  1. How do we kill it?
  2. How do we keep it from killing us (or everyone)?
  3. How do we help it?
  4. How do I (Kirk, usually) love it (without causing items 1-3)?
Take a look at the Original Series and compare it to any successors. Despite its basic plot points, however, it withstands muster because the story wasn't the technology, but the people, all flawed, but damned determined, like the Cowboys of the West. In the Original Series, at least the show was character-driven, like BSG today. The best two ST movies, "The Wrath of Khan" and "First Contact", were very character driven, used regular-series material, and were fun. The Next Generation and much of DS9 had better moments than not, but were still filled with technobabble and other nonsense that pushed the plot and badly. BSG can take something as simple as looking for things like water and fuel or, heaven help us, a baby and turn the plot into something we just won't want to miss. ST is a morass; at least in the Original Series, it worked. Today, I just don't know what to think of it. I think of the SF culture now like the airline industry. "Airlines" like BSG, B5, Farscape, and Stargate say to their flyers, "We know you have a choice in SF, and we're glad you chose us." Viacom doesn't know or care what to do. I suspect that will change, maybe even with this movie. I doubt it, however. It will take a RDM-like transformation--and if we thought our gnashing of teeth on RDM Galactica's announcement was big, imagine what fans will do if ST got "re-imagined." --Spencerian 08:07, 30 June 2006 (CDT)

Need a Deletion

I don't know who to send this to, but since you have seniority I thought I'd tell you. I've made a pretty bad error. Not an hour ago watched the Miniseries all the way through and, you remember that Caprica 7 article I made? The TV station's name is actually Caprica 5. The "7" is actually from Channel 7 News, also shown in the Miniseries. I'm going to split that Caprica 7 article into two new articles, one for Caprica 5 and the other for Channel 7 News. Sigh. I shouldn't have jumped onto that article without watching my source again. Oh well. Anyway, I need the trigger pulled on Caprica 7 (as soon as I make the other two articles, of course). If you or someone could get on that I'd appreciate it. Take your time of course. Then again, this would probably be a good time for me to learn how to delete articles. Any approach you want to take is fine with me. I'll tell you when the other articles are done. --Homeworld616 16:20, 5 July 2006 (CDT)

For future reference, just tag an article with a {{delete}} that you need deleted, and one of the mop-bearers (admins) should come along and clean it up. --Steelviper 16:51, 5 July 2006 (CDT)
All right. I'll remember that. Thanks. --Homeworld616 09:24, 6 July 2006 (CDT)

State of the Wiki

While the OSAD project is far from being 100%, I was wondering if you were going to reassess the current state of the wiki (as you did before, when you found the TOS content to be so woefully inadequate). The TOS space has come a long way now that nearly every non-terminology article has a picture, and red links are an endangered species. It has kind of made me wonder if it might be worthwhile to have a "state of the wiki" report that breaks down the wiki into areas and is periodically (but regularly) updated regarding the progress in those areas. Maybe something for the think tank after I let it ferment a bit. --Steelviper 12:35, 13 July 2006 (CDT)

Yep, it has all come a long way in a year, and a review is overdue. I think the comparative aspect between other wikis works well so we don't compare ourselves with ourselves to the point where it seems like the Oscars and the self-backslapping you see there. At the same time, I wonder if it's "fair" for me to make that self-assessment by my lonesome now. Maybe it's a Joe thing, with us commenting or voting on key aspects of the wiki to form the final collective assessment. --Spencerian 12:40, 13 July 2006 (CDT)
Peter Jackson talked about wanting to be hypnotized to forget he had anything to do with LOTR so that he could objectively watch and critique it. Objectivity may indeed be difficult to achieve from an "insider". The trouble is... it can be hard finding "outsiders" to be judges. --Steelviper 12:45, 13 July 2006 (CDT)
I'm in the middle of massive fixes to the Wiki; could you please give me a few days before making any assessments guys? (Need to clear up RL work, then I'm going to sit down an make like 1,000 edits at a sitting, soon). --The Merovingian (C - E) 12:59, 13 July 2006 (CDT)
No problem. We were still very much in the "talk it over" phase. Though I am curious what the 1,000 edit marathon will be in regards to. (As long as it isn't a spoiler, in which case I can wait...) --Steelviper 13:04, 13 July 2006 (CDT)

Scifi.com

For the record, btw, as many of you may know from the messageboards, I think the Scifi.com is poorly run and (unlike Ron Moore) doesn't really try to "connect with the fans", as they claim (the messageboards are a laughingstock of poor moderating, the Battlestar website hasn't been updated in a full year, they only post up Ron's blog and podcasts but that's more Ron's doing than theirs...plus Mrs.Ron tells us that Ron has supplied several new podcasts to them that they simply haven't put up). Anyway, Scifi Weekly on their front page has a "review a website" thing and I mailed in a "Hey, why not review BattlestarWiki?" request. To be honest, I think they would view us as competition with their abortive, and, also pathetically laughable wiki attempt, Scifipedia (I can't even log in). --The Merovingian (C - E) 13:03, 13 July 2006 (CDT)

As much as I fear and despise redundancy as a computer scientist, I really don't have a problem with the Scifipedia. One has only to type in a few basic search words (major characters, episode names, etc.) to see that it really isn't trying to compete with a specialized wiki like this one. They have one big summary article about BSG, and that's about it. I don't view it so much as a rivalry as an entity with an entirely different mission. They're trying to cover a much broader spectrum by covering "Scifi"... especially since that now apparently includes the world of professional wrestling. --Steelviper 13:08, 13 July 2006 (CDT)
Oh no I don't view them as a rival: I'd like it if they were up and running as a succesful wiki. The reason for my contempt is that the clowns at Scifi.com don't run it well and it's loaded with technical problems. Basically I couldn't log in (they have many log in problems) and their "response" was "well, if you want we could delete your current account"...um, I'm not giving up an over 4,000 post screename for that, and it wasn't much of a "solution". Only the latest in a long string of frustrations--The Merovingian (C - E) 13:12, 13 July 2006 (CDT)
My fear is that the "clowns" are just barely plural. What if the only people running the site are Admin and the much maligned Admin1. Maybe Scifi just underestimates how much manpower it takes to maintain an online presence in this day and age. I'd prefer to imagine their problems as being caused by massing staffing/funding shortages. I guess I just don't want to believe that a properly funded and staffed web team could run a site so poorly. --Steelviper 13:16, 13 July 2006 (CDT)
Some people have said there's a marked difference between "Admin" and "Admin1", and alothough I realize that they are 2 separate people, I've not noticed a difference; there is?--The Merovingian (C - E) 13:37, 13 July 2006 (CDT)
I've not had interactions with either, so I can't testify one way or the other. However the ip of "Admin" seems based out of NYC, while "Admin1" appears to hail from Seattle (I realize proxies can fool this, but most people don't bother). Also, the "note from the admin" (excerpted below) says you can pm either of them. They've just never seemed... responsive or communicative, which has really damaged the situation. --Steelviper 13:49, 13 July 2006 (CDT)
"The Battlestar BBoard will be monitored by site administrators throughout the day. If you see a post that you feel violates the rules above, send a private message to "admin" or "admin1" and it will be reviewed. Our decisions regarding what constitutes a violation will be subjective, and will err on the side of free and open discussion, but we will not tolerate openly hostile or abusive behavior.
As always, if you have any suggestions for how we can improve our message boards, we'd love to hear them. E-mail us directly at bboard@www.scifi.com."
Is that really what it says? "bboard@www.scifi.com"? That's... I mean--That doesn't look like a valid email address to me. Now, granted, I'm not a piece of email-related software, so I could be wrong, but I've never see "www" in an email addy before. Weird. --Day (Talk - Admin) 14:12, 13 July 2006 (CDT)