| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 98: |
Line 98: |
| The initial Standardization which I proposed this project for has been completed. I've fixed up all of those Analysis sections from (mostly) Season 1, which sounded like ''Reviews''. '''There is currently no episode article in dire need of any particular cleanup.''' However, we should be vigilant about episode standardization in the future, during Season 3 and beyond, to make sure that new episode guide entries match the format. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]])</sup> 01:32, 28 July 2006 (CDT) | | The initial Standardization which I proposed this project for has been completed. I've fixed up all of those Analysis sections from (mostly) Season 1, which sounded like ''Reviews''. '''There is currently no episode article in dire need of any particular cleanup.''' However, we should be vigilant about episode standardization in the future, during Season 3 and beyond, to make sure that new episode guide entries match the format. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]])</sup> 01:32, 28 July 2006 (CDT) |
| :I'd still like to see the TOS and 1980 episode guides standardized, as well as refining and documenting what each section is for (to make it clearer for those who wish to contribute, as well as for applying to existing work). Is Pegasus (episode) still your pick as the best example of a "standard" episode? --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 07:59, 28 July 2006 (CDT) | | :I'd still like to see the TOS and 1980 episode guides standardized, as well as refining and documenting what each section is for (to make it clearer for those who wish to contribute, as well as for applying to existing work). Is Pegasus (episode) still your pick as the best example of a "standard" episode? --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 07:59, 28 July 2006 (CDT) |
|
| |
| ==Status==
| |
| During the past weeks, I think that I have moved all the continuity errors/goofs/bloopers stuff to [[Continuity errors (RDM)]].<br><br>
| |
| In the last two days, I went back through all episodes and "standardize" the Noteworthy Dialogue section according to what had sort evolved by the end of Season 2. Main purpose was to make them "look" the same for the casual viewer, and not a major correction/rewrite of the contents. If it is decided to format them different, at least they are all the "same" now which will make reformating easier. <br><br>
| |
| The other MAJOR thing that I did mainly for the sake "look" and casual readibility was "move" two large "non-standard" "deus ex machina" sections in [[Epiphanies]] and [[Flight of the Phoenix]]. Most of the Epiphanies stuff was already duplicated in the [[Science in the Re-imagined Series]] article. However, this was not true of the Flight of the Phoenix, so I finally deided to move the info to the Science article. I realize that others may have different ideas about this, but I was on a roll going through episodes and did what I thought was the "best". Nice thing about the wiki is that it is easy to revert. :) --[[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] 15:30, 23 September 2006 (CDT)
| |
|
| |
| == Candidate ==
| |
|
| |
| I think a candidate article that we can finally set to is [[Resurrection Ship, Part II]]. Comments? --[[User:Shane|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]])</sup> 20:27, 8 October 2006 (CDT)
| |
|
| |
| == Questions/Analysis Sections ==
| |
|
| |
| They are getting way to long with a lot of "forum" type questions and answer discustions. I think we need to come up with a game plan on how we should deal with this. My ideas are as follows...
| |
|
| |
| * Questions
| |
| ** Questions should be something that come from the episode, and no speculation should be put underneath. Unless the question can be answered in a future episode with that episode guide having the proper [[BW:CITE]] information, it should then be placed in the {{tlp|spoilli|''Info''}} tag. Once that information becomes "non-spolier", the {{tl|spoilli}} tag can be removed. Otherwise nothing should be placed.
| |
| ** Question should only be one thing, so if a new question is warnted from a question listed already, it should have it's own heading; not <nowiki>**</nowiki> under another question.
| |
| ** Questions from pervious episodes must be ''checked'' to see if they been answered in episodes aired after them.
| |
| ** Questions should be answered from Official Sources or Episodes and/or Deleted Scenes. User speculation answers should not be allowed, unless the question is related to the same episode that it's posted under.
| |
| *** I.e From '''[[Exodus, Part II]]:''' Q: Since Galactica now has Pegasus' Viper and Raptor compliment in addition to its own, will the starboard flight pod now be pressed back into service? ''A: It might alredy be in service after a year of free time to convert it back. Also the vipers are lauched out of the starboard pod when Galactica is falling.''
| |
| * Analysis
| |
| ** Simply anaysing. No questions at all. "Reasons" should be consise.
| |
|
| |
| That's about it. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]])</sup> 23:44, 21 October 2006 (CDT)
| |
|
| |
| : I can't find any fault with this. It's also how it was done on the Lurker's Guide as well. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 12:04, 22 October 2006 (CDT)
| |
|
| |
| ::I see it this way: Notes is for simple things that don't require any thought but are kind of interesting: "Pegasus doesn't retract flight pods", "Tyrol shaved his beard", etc. Analysis is for points that require more explication: "Kat was previously shown to be a driven pilot in "Final Cut", so it's unsurprising that she is so talented in "Scar" now that she's overcome her Stim addiction." Questions is for those remaining points which cannot be answered by the episodes aired to date.
| |
| ::The key point about the questions section is that they ''should not have answers'' in the material aired up to the episode's release. Questions which are answered adequately should be redacted and moved to analysis. It should be our expectation that contributors will do this themselves, and not wait for a mop boy to do the gruntwork. Redaction is particularly excrutiating given the current server problems and the issue of edit collisions. --[[User:April Arcus|April Arcus]] 21:50, 25 October 2006 (CDT)
| |
| :::Again, 100% agree. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]])</sup> 21:55, 25 October 2006 (CDT)
| |
|
| |
| == Updates to Guides ==
| |
|
| |
| === Images in Guides and Analysis section ===
| |
| The best looking example of how we should do image in guides and maybe a better version of Analysis sections is in the "[[He That Believeth In Me]]" guide. The headers and images in each act give it some interactive flavor. I have added an image to the notes section for [[Six of One]] and [[The Ties That Bind]], but those are sections that usually show one thing that is important. Comments? [[BW:SAC]] page would need to be updated. [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|talk]]) 16:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
| |
| === Act vs. Location ===
| |
| We really also gotta update old guides to the Act Format or Location format. Location format should only be used if the episode has two or more story lines happening. Acts should always be four and flushed out in detail. Comments? [[BW:SAC]] page would need to be updated. [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|talk]]) 16:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| == Excessive Use of Lists ==
| |
|
| |
| Hi. I'm new here and was looking over some episode articles. Can someone explain to me the reasoning behind the excessive use of lists on those pages? It actually makes it harder to read. Also, the Notes and Analysis sections seem rather unorganized when just thrown all together in a large list. --[[User:Tuzaa|Tuzaa]] 03:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| : Welcome, Tuzaa! In response to your question, the formats are directly inspired by the guide pages on [http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/lurker.htm Lurkers Guide to ''Babylon 5'']. Hence the extensive use of lists.
| |
|
| |
| : As for the analysis and notes sections, they do tend to be thrown together in a disorganized fashion, and this is particularly the case for the older episode guides dating back from season 1 and 2. When it comes to episode guides for the newer episodes, such as "[[He That Believeth In Me]]" and others, this problem is rectified as the points are all bulleted together under a theme or topic. Of course, any help in organizing the notes and analysis sections in older episode guides would be greatly appreciated! -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]]</sup> 03:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| ::At the very least, each bullet point in Summary should be a separate scene. That is not always the case. --[[User:Tuzaa|Tuzaa]] 05:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| ::Here's a suggested format change. Use a definition list instead of an unordered list for the Acts. Each list item should be a scene. See example at: [[User:Tuzaa/Sandbox#Summary]] --[[User:Tuzaa|Tuzaa]] 05:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
| |
| :::Grouping them more logically, instead of starting a new bullet point when it's convenient is certainly a good idea. Scenes are fine. But personally, I don't like those additional headers. The paragraphs themselves point out where a scene takes place. As for the style in general. That depends on the person doing the summary. Some use more bullet points than others for some reason. -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 11:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
| |
| ::::I agree with Serenity. Obviously, things can probably be tightened when it comes to when a bullet point is and should be used. Probably best to define such things in the [[BW:SAC|standards and conventions]]. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]]</sup> 20:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
| |
| :I used the idea of collecting each line item into scenes and naming the scene location from scriptwriting practices. The reason I liked the definition list is because the default formatting makes it a little easier on the eyes to separate the list items than from an unordered or ordered list. The bullet points for some reason just made it all blend together. Another possibility is to change the CSS for a definition list so that the "headword" appears inline with the definition. *shrug* Speaking of CSS, it seems like the image thumbnails need some padding around them. The text hits right up against the image border (on Firefox using default skin). --[[User:Tuzaa|Tuzaa]] 23:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
| |
| ::From main.css: div.thumb {border:medium none;margin-bottom:0.5em;width:auto;} Suggest adding margin:0.5em or margin-left:0.5em. --[[User:Tuzaa|Tuzaa]] 23:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
| |
