Editing Battlestar Wiki:Quality Articles/New Caprican loco weed

{{qa talk|New Caprican loco weed}}

== Summary ==

Wait, what?   ... all joking aside, and aside from the fact that I wrote most of it, this article is a quality representation of a [[:Category:Silly Pages|Silly]] page. See also: [[Spot the Cylon]]. [[User:JubalHarshaw|JubalHarshaw]] 22:05, 21 May 2007 (CDT) 

== Suggestions ==

I'm a little torn about the notion that a non-sequitur page can be a quality page. However, perhaps looking at the quality of the article's purpose (that is, to make one laugh and poke fun at a canonical subject) is sufficient to merit a silly page as quality. This would allow silly pages to get some credit since they can't be Featured Articles.

You realize, of course, that this page must be outstandingly funny as a result. I love what's in it now, but perhaps the pot-smoker references and stories can be improved just a tad. I think this is one of the funniest, but let's make it work to the point where it's just pee-in-your-pants hilarious. Maybe a bogus TOS reference to [[plant vapors]] would help (with [[Starbuck (TOS)|Starbuck]] being disappointed that his personal stash was confiscated or something). You get the idea. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 08:33, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

:Response to paragraph 1: yes, that was basically my thought as well. I hesitated to nominate it (just as I hesitated to write it in the first place). Maybe Silly articles shouldn't be official Quality articles, though technically they have to be "quality" (at least by consensus standards) to even remain in existence. I absolutely understand and agree with the decision to restrict them from FA status, however, I don't believe we should restrict them from QA status - 

:Response to paragraph 2: Does a quality Silly article need to be side-splittingly hilarious, or is well-wrought tongue-in-cheek nonsense (my basic intent when writing this) enough? My original purpose was to poke fun at a canonical subject, creating a story of its discovery that both poked fun at real world concepts (prohibition, decriminalization, various other hemp lore), poke fun at other RDM BSG drug references ([[chamalla]] and so forth), that "fit" within the actual canon events that took place. As far as hilarity, I find the "Also known as" section to be particularly funny, especially such entries as "Adama Bomba", "Tigh Stick" and "Battlestash Galactiganj". I'm all for any attempts to increase the funny factor, of course, but personally I am content with the article as it stands, even if that means no Quality article tag. Obviously, this is a wiki, I claim no ownership, consensus may differ, and it may be edited at will! I just wanted to add my 2 cents. [[User:JubalHarshaw|JubalHarshaw]] 12:55, 22 May 2007 (CDT)
@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 :Response to paragraph 2: Does a quality Silly article need to be side-splittingly hilarious, or is well-wrought tongue-in-cheek nonsense (my basic intent when writing this) enough? My original purpose was to poke fun at a canonical subject, creating a story of its discovery that both poked fun at real world concepts (prohibition, decriminalization, various other hemp lore), poke fun at other RDM BSG drug references ([[chamalla]] and so forth), that "fit" within the actual canon events that took place. As far as hilarity, I find the "Also known as" section to be particularly funny, especially such entries as "Adama Bomba", "Tigh Stick" and "Battlestash Galactiganj". I'm all for any attempts to increase the funny factor, of course, but personally I am content with the article as it stands, even if that means no Quality article tag. Obviously, this is a wiki, I claim no ownership, consensus may differ, and it may be edited at will! I just wanted to add my 2 cents. [[User:JubalHarshaw|JubalHarshaw]] 12:55, 22 May 2007 (CDT)
-:: QA is different than FA, in my mind. Any article can be a QA, which is the ultimate goal of ''any'' article. FA is quite selective, since it's representative of the community's efforts at large. Also, silly articles don't have to be "side-splittingly hilarious"; they need to have some humor to them, but that depends on the community at large. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki &mdash; ''New'']</sup> 21:48, 22 May 2007 (CDT)
-:::Well I personally prefer the tongue-in-cheek humor, but pure blatant sillyness is also awesome. --[[User:BklynBruzer|BklynBruzer]] 23:03, 22 May 2007 (CDT)