Battlestar Wiki Battlestar Wiki:Think Tank/Separate continuity change

Battlestar Wiki:Think Tank/Separate continuity change

From Battlestar Wiki, the free, open content Battlestar Galactica encyclopedia and episode guide
This is an archive successful proposal that was vetted through the Think Tank, a place where ideas of all kinds are proposed and worked upon by the community prior to implementation. Please do not modify this proposal.

First off, I'm not really sure if I'm following the correct procedure for this or not. If I'm not, please correct it or tell me how to.

Current policy

Currently, our separate continuity policy means that we can make pages on licensed products (games, books, comics, etc) and new characters, ships, locations, etc., contained within them. However, we cannot include information from those sources within articles based on canonical sources (i.e., anything featured/mentioned in episodes). For example, an article on the Third Colonial Conflict exists, but information about it can't be included in the Twelve Colonies page.

Suggested revision

As a reader of the comics, I feel that this is a mistake that we should change. For example, there is a lot of information on Sagittaron from Battlestar Galactica: Zarek 1 that should be included in said Twelve Colonies article. I'm not saying we should fully integrate it with the canonical information or that we should mark it as canonical; I'm just saying that it should be included somewhere within the article.

Ideas

1: Interspercing throughout article

For this idea, information from non-canonical sources could be included throughout the main article, although marked as being non-canon either by tags (as is done on Wookieepedia) or by placing the section in italics and noting (as is done on MemoryAlpha).

For example, an article on Sagittarion could read:

Sagittarion was one of the Twelve Colonies.

John Smith was its President during the Cylon Wars.

Tom Zarek was a native of the world.

One downside: it would make articles cluttered, especially if there are multiple (conflicting) accounts of the same aspect/event/etc.

2: Separate sections

For this idea, article could have a non-canon section at the bottom to put information from spinoffs. This is also done at MemoryAlpha, and is similar to some Wikipedia articles covering characters that have multiple stories from multiple sources. For example, an article might read:

Sagittaron was a colony that Tom Zarek was from.
==Sagittaron in separate continuity==

3: Separate articles

Under this proposal separate articles could be created for characters and places that already exist in the main continuity, but are also dealt with in novels and comics. That way the information can be presented, but kept apart from the main articles.

For example Zarek (alternate), or Boxey (RDM alternate) for an article that already has a disambiguation, for information on these characters available in novels and comics.

3A. Separate articles as a subpage

As suggested on the talk page, articles on separate continuity can be created as a subpage of the canonical article.

For instance, the comic version of Tom Zarek would be chronicled at Tom Zarek/alternate.

3B. Separate articles as its own page with a parenthetical disambig

As noted above, articles can have their own name, without being subordinate to a canonical article.

To deal with a character or item with a (TOS) or (RDM) disambig in its title, such disambiguations would be extended to (TOS alternative) and (RDM alternative) respectively, or to a modifier in place of "alternate" as chosen by consensus.

So an article on Boxey (TOS) would be Boxey (TOS alternative).

The main argument for this would be that a "separate continuity" article should not be an underling of a canonical article, but separate as demonstrated by the name.

Conclusion

I feel it is important for us to rectify this misguided part of policy, as it serves a detrimental purpose and is based on no discernable reason.

The above is an archive of a proposal that was vetted through the Think Tank. Please do not modify or edit this archived proposal.