Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive2 - Revision history

Joe Beaudoin Jr.: Text replacement - "[[Twelve Colonies (RDM)" to "[[Twelve Colonies of Kobol"

2021-05-06T00:14:56Z

Text replacement - "[[Twelve Colonies (RDM)" to "[[Twelve Colonies of Kobol"

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:14, 6 May 2021
Line 377:		Line 377:
	::Two: Sharon's baby has '''not been born yet'''. Do ''not'' assume it will come to term. Imagine the holy hell that the Cylons will unleash if they learn that it ''doesn't''. Imagine the political hell in the Fleet if it ''does''. Either way works well for the writers, so we can't make the assumption. Ron Moore has promised some radical changes for the Fleet at the end of this season, and much of this could involve that child to be. Once we know for certain that this hybrid is born and is even given a name, then a page is quite appropriate and necessary. But until then, creating an article for this or any other hybrids or proposed character to-be goes against our sourcing policies (it's speculation until shown in an episode) and is premature (no pun intended).		::Two: Sharon's baby has '''not been born yet'''. Do ''not'' assume it will come to term. Imagine the holy hell that the Cylons will unleash if they learn that it ''doesn't''. Imagine the political hell in the Fleet if it ''does''. Either way works well for the writers, so we can't make the assumption. Ron Moore has promised some radical changes for the Fleet at the end of this season, and much of this could involve that child to be. Once we know for certain that this hybrid is born and is even given a name, then a page is quite appropriate and necessary. But until then, creating an article for this or any other hybrids or proposed character to-be goes against our sourcing policies (it's speculation until shown in an episode) and is premature (no pun intended).

	::Three: To differentiate between the Valerii's and other Cylon agents is asking for trouble at present. They are identical in creation and mission; if they begin to vary on that mission, a subarticle is written. The [[Number Six]] article shows at least three variations and it appears to work well. Now, a number of articles are becoming long, true. But, as a wiki, we haven't created a policy yet as to how to break up or concise such data as it relates to these character bios. We ''have'' worked out a process for the [[Cylons (RDM)]] and [[Twelve Colonies ~~(RDM)~~]] article series, which could be adopted for the characters with some thought. Changes that are more POV or assumptive like these, and less in form to the wiki's overall format or mission are detrimental, IMO. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 09:44, 24 January 2006 (EST)		::Three: To differentiate between the Valerii's and other Cylon agents is asking for trouble at present. They are identical in creation and mission; if they begin to vary on that mission, a subarticle is written. The [[Number Six]] article shows at least three variations and it appears to work well. Now, a number of articles are becoming long, true. But, as a wiki, we haven't created a policy yet as to how to break up or concise such data as it relates to these character bios. We ''have'' worked out a process for the [[Cylons (RDM)]] and [[Twelve Colonies of Kobol]] article series, which could be adopted for the characters with some thought. Changes that are more POV or assumptive like these, and less in form to the wiki's overall format or mission are detrimental, IMO. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 09:44, 24 January 2006 (EST)

	:::I don't think the show has yet provided a canonical term to distinguish the "human models" from the more mechanical models. I think "Cylon Agent" would be a good placeholder/redirect, but that's based on the writing on a folder and not consistent adoption within the show. One thing that hasn't been established well (at least in my mind) is WHO the Cylons are. Are the humanoid-cylons the new, REAL cylons (with centurions, raiders, etc. serving their interests)? Or are all models part of a true "Cylon collective" (resistance is futile) where everybody is considered equally "Cylon". If the humano-Cylons prove to be the "real" Cylons, then I would see them taking more of a prominent role at Cylons (RDM). Until then, I think that any term we use is just serving as a placeholder.		:::I don't think the show has yet provided a canonical term to distinguish the "human models" from the more mechanical models. I think "Cylon Agent" would be a good placeholder/redirect, but that's based on the writing on a folder and not consistent adoption within the show. One thing that hasn't been established well (at least in my mind) is WHO the Cylons are. Are the humanoid-cylons the new, REAL cylons (with centurions, raiders, etc. serving their interests)? Or are all models part of a true "Cylon collective" (resistance is futile) where everybody is considered equally "Cylon". If the humano-Cylons prove to be the "real" Cylons, then I would see them taking more of a prominent role at Cylons (RDM). Until then, I think that any term we use is just serving as a placeholder.

April Arcus: name change

2020-04-11T05:54:12Z

name change

Joe Beaudoin Jr.: Text replacement - "Peter Farago" to "April Arcus"

2020-04-11T01:54:33Z

Text replacement - "Peter Farago" to "April Arcus"

Show changes

Joe Beaudoin Jr.: fixing link to get rid of the entry on Special:Wantedpages

2007-10-13T06:37:10Z

fixing link to get rid of the entry on Special:Wantedpages

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:37, 13 October 2007
Line 2:		Line 2:
	\| start = December 1st, 2005		\| start = December 1st, 2005
	\| end = February 5th, 2006		\| end = February 5th, 2006
	\| newarchive = 03		\| newarchive = 3
	\| sig = [[User:Shane\|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane\|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane\|E]])</sup> 12:31, 24 June 2006 (CDT)		\| sig = [[User:Shane\|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane\|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane\|E]])</sup> 12:31, 24 June 2006 (CDT)
	}}		}}
Line 373:		Line 373:
	::This is long, so forgive me, but there are important issues that change our nature that I cannot agree to.		::This is long, so forgive me, but there are important issues that change our nature that I cannot agree to.

	::Let's deal with the terminology change first. I had my qualms about "humano-Cylon" when I first saw it, but it is an efficient term to differentiate these beings from robotic Cylons here, especially given that the show has not really furnished a unique term. "Cylon Agent" is the closest that the show has used, with "human models" and "Cylon humans" after that. ''Battlestar Wiki'' has many articles that use descriptive terms as placeholders in lieu of a canonical name: "[[Presidential security service]]", "[[Identification Tags]]", and "[[Colonial wireless alphabet]]" are other examples. "Cylon agent" can be used as a placeholder redirect if one is tired of typing it, but we need more reason than "we don't like the term" to change "Humano-Cylon" now, as it appears on many, ''many'' articles here. And frankly, it's grown large enough that purging it will be very difficult. Our naming conventions are here for a reason, so making exceptions for the Sharon Valeriis diminishes our effectiveness as an encyclopedia, which MUST NOT be ambiguous, strive to keep to the basic definition and not wallow about in subdefinitions as an unnecessary article into itself--which is what you are proposing. "Humano-Cylon" is ''very'' popular here, and what goes on in the "outside world" doesn't really matter in the context of maintaining this wiki, so long as others can use their own terms and we provide appropriate redirects to our article as appropriate. I understand the spirit of what you're suggesting, but we lack a sufficient "why", in my opinion. Although I see a good reasoning between what are "Cylons" in RDM and what are "robot Cylons" that can withstand further debate, I think we should adjust the wiki as the characters do: when the characters begin to see the Cylons with human traits and not a machine to be shut down, our data here should reflect it. Otherwise, differentiating them to any large degree would be like writing bios on the "Borg" drones from "Star Trek." No point, as they are all generally the same.		::Let's deal with the terminology change first. I had my qualms about "humano-Cylon" when I first saw it, but it is an efficient term to differentiate these beings from robotic Cylons here, especially given that the show has not really furnished a unique term. "Cylon Agent" is the closest that the show has used, with "human models" and "Cylon humans" after that. ''Battlestar Wiki'' has many articles that use descriptive terms as placeholders in lieu of a canonical name: "[[Presidential security service]]", "[[dog tags\|Identification Tags]]", and "[[Colonial wireless alphabet]]" are other examples. "Cylon agent" can be used as a placeholder redirect if one is tired of typing it, but we need more reason than "we don't like the term" to change "Humano-Cylon" now, as it appears on many, ''many'' articles here. And frankly, it's grown large enough that purging it will be very difficult. Our naming conventions are here for a reason, so making exceptions for the Sharon Valeriis diminishes our effectiveness as an encyclopedia, which MUST NOT be ambiguous, strive to keep to the basic definition and not wallow about in subdefinitions as an unnecessary article into itself--which is what you are proposing. "Humano-Cylon" is ''very'' popular here, and what goes on in the "outside world" doesn't really matter in the context of maintaining this wiki, so long as others can use their own terms and we provide appropriate redirects to our article as appropriate. I understand the spirit of what you're suggesting, but we lack a sufficient "why", in my opinion. Although I see a good reasoning between what are "Cylons" in RDM and what are "robot Cylons" that can withstand further debate, I think we should adjust the wiki as the characters do: when the characters begin to see the Cylons with human traits and not a machine to be shut down, our data here should reflect it. Otherwise, differentiating them to any large degree would be like writing bios on the "Borg" drones from "Star Trek." No point, as they are all generally the same.

	::Two: Sharon's baby has '''not been born yet'''. Do ''not'' assume it will come to term. Imagine the holy hell that the Cylons will unleash if they learn that it ''doesn't''. Imagine the political hell in the Fleet if it ''does''. Either way works well for the writers, so we can't make the assumption. Ron Moore has promised some radical changes for the Fleet at the end of this season, and much of this could involve that child to be. Once we know for certain that this hybrid is born and is even given a name, then a page is quite appropriate and necessary. But until then, creating an article for this or any other hybrids or proposed character to-be goes against our sourcing policies (it's speculation until shown in an episode) and is premature (no pun intended).		::Two: Sharon's baby has '''not been born yet'''. Do ''not'' assume it will come to term. Imagine the holy hell that the Cylons will unleash if they learn that it ''doesn't''. Imagine the political hell in the Fleet if it ''does''. Either way works well for the writers, so we can't make the assumption. Ron Moore has promised some radical changes for the Fleet at the end of this season, and much of this could involve that child to be. Once we know for certain that this hybrid is born and is even given a name, then a page is quite appropriate and necessary. But until then, creating an article for this or any other hybrids or proposed character to-be goes against our sourcing policies (it's speculation until shown in an episode) and is premature (no pun intended).

Shane: Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive02 moved to Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive2

2007-06-16T21:51:39Z

Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive02 moved to Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive2

← Older revision	Revision as of 21:51, 16 June 2007
(No difference)

Shane at 14:27, 28 August 2006

2006-08-28T14:27:33Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:27, 28 August 2006
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{archive-message		{{archive-message
	~~\| pagename = Standards and Conventions~~
	\| start = December 1st, 2005		\| start = December 1st, 2005
	\| end = February 5th, 2006		\| end = February 5th, 2006
	\| newarchive = 04		\| newarchive = 03
	\| sig = [[User:Shane\|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane\|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane\|E]])</sup> 12:31, 24 June 2006 (CDT)		\| sig = [[User:Shane\|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane\|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane\|E]])</sup> 12:31, 24 June 2006 (CDT)
	\|}}		}}

	==Disambiguation==		==Disambiguation==
	There are two approaches to disambiguation between series currently in practice:		There are two approaches to disambiguation between series currently in practice:

Shane at 17:31, 24 June 2006

2006-06-24T17:31:36Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:31, 24 June 2006
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~'''INSERT NEW TEMPLATE HERE'''~~		{{archive-message
			\| pagename = Standards and Conventions
			\| start = December 1st, 2005
			\| end = February 5th, 2006
			\| newarchive = 04
			\| sig = [[User:Shane\|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane\|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane\|E]])</sup> 12:31, 24 June 2006 (CDT)
			\|}}

	==Disambiguation==		==Disambiguation==

Shane at 17:23, 24 June 2006

2006-06-24T17:23:07Z

Show changes

April Arcus at 17:55, 10 May 2006

2006-05-10T17:55:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:55, 10 May 2006
Line 5:		Line 5:
	Post replies to the [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions\|main talk page]], copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page\|Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page]].)		Post replies to the [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions\|main talk page]], copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page\|Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page]].)

	Please add new archivals to the bottom of this page, or to [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive03]] if this page exceeds 32 kilobytes. Thank you. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 15:35, 23 September 2005 (EDT)		Please add new archivals to the bottom of this page, or to [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive03\|Archive 03]] if this page exceeds 32 kilobytes. Thank you. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 15:35, 23 September 2005 (EDT)

	==Disambiguation==		==Disambiguation==

April Arcus at 04:52, 2 December 2005

2005-12-02T04:52:03Z

New page

'''DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.'''

This archive page covers approximately the dates between December 1st, 2005 and the present.

Post replies to the [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions|main talk page]], copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page]].)

Please add new archivals to the bottom of this page, or to [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive03]] if this page exceeds 32 kilobytes. Thank you. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 15:35, 23 September 2005 (EDT)

==Disambiguation==
There are two approaches to disambiguation between series currently in practice:
*The most popular is to namespace (TOS) content and leave the RDM content at the un-namespaced location - this is currently done for most categories, for example. Under this schema, disambig pages should be namespaced (e.g., "Pegasus (disambig)") and RDM content should not (e.g. "Pegasus", not "Pegasus (RDM)").
*The other practice employed here is to namespace both TOS and RDM content when a collision occurs, and use the non-namespaced article to disambiguate.

I don't personally plan to contribute to much outside of the RDM continuity, but given that this Wiki is given over to all four major incarnations of the show (TOS, 1980, the Video Game, and the current series), I'm not sure its appropriate to give the current series preference.

On the other hand, the RDM series is the only one currently producing new content, and namespacing everything can be tedious. What are your opinions? --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 02:49, 2 October 2005 (EDT)

:Obviously, most of the people looking up "Battlestar Galactica" in google, amazon, or wiki, or anything nowadays are probably looking for info on the new series. We should make that information as easy to access as possible.
::''[[User:Jzanjani|Jzanjani]] 17:41, 5 October 2005 (EDT)''

:::I'm in favor of using namespaces only when there are articles whose names appear in both TOS and RDM. For "Pegasus", "Galactica" and "Battlestar", namespacing was obviously needed. But for "Ovion" and episodes like "The Living Legend", no, since they are uniquely TOS articles. Since information here wasn't intended to naturally slant to RDM content (though for obvious reasons it is), we should strive to keep the balance by adding related TOS links to similar articles as possible. "The Hand of God" RDM page, for instance, should be namespaced since it has an identical name to a TOS episode, and that RDM article has a link to the TOS article (buried, however). I'm becoming a big proponent of helping to make this site THE authorative reference for TOS information: If you have searched the internet for TOS information and sites, you'd find that it's really, really sparse content out there. This site is going to make me rent or buy the complete TOS series (and, Lords help me, Galactica 1980) so I can study them with the same scrutiny as RDM and get their episode and character pages ship-shape. [[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 17:51, 5 October 2005 (EDT)

::::Having given it some more thought, I tend to agree that we shouldn't treat RDM content preferentially. On a personal note, you're a braver man than I. I hope exposure to the original series doesn't permanently damage you; it would be a shame to lose such a valuable contributor. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:54, 5 October 2005 (EDT)

:::::When BSG is good, it's really good. When BSG is bad, it's still BSG. [[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 10:19, 6 October 2005 (EDT)

:Although I'm sure there are legions of BSG fans who are very interested in TOS and 1980, I think that a more casual viewer will be a little bit lost when he finds a disambiguation page pointing to five different pages which share the same name except for a few capital letters at the end. A lot of people will not be able to appreciate the very clean and precise compartmentalization of one topic according to primary source, because they probably don't even care that there was some ''other'' BSG a quarter-century ago. If we're trying to make things clean and tidy for the fanbase, then compartmentalizing like that is the way to go. But casual fans (which the creators of the current series have said they're trying to attract) are going to stumble a little bit when they see that there was an original series, a subsequent, short-lived, non-canonical series, a video game, a mini-series, and then finally the re-imagined series which is really the only thing that's making people even talk about BSG anymore. I really think that if we make RDM pages default, it'll allow a lot more people to take advantage of the content. That way they don't have to educate themselves on the whole production history of the original BSG, and why the 1980's series sucks, and this, that and the other. It's really easy to get lost in wiki just by clicking on the first linked word which you don't understand, and it's going to distract the people who are looking for the '''''real''''' BSG, if you will suffer my usage.

:: I think people would know what "RDM" means just as much as "TOS", "TNG", "DS9", "VOY", or "ENT". ---Ricimer

::: I think we should use (RDM) for RDM stuff, rather than assume it as default. Otherwise we have to cross-link everything to the (disambiguation) page, rather than have the disambig page show up when the search is run. What if someone's doing research about TV shows from the 80s or something. I agree that people will know, or quickly figure out the abbriviations we use here. I didn't know who Ronald D Moore was before I started working on this Wiki and it didn't take me very long at all to figure out how things are. It's not some intricate, color-and-alpha catalogging scheme. --[[User:Day|Day]] 04:40, 6 October 2005 (EDT)

::::Do we have enough consensus on this to make it a guideline? --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 00:28, 14 October 2005 (EDT)

:::::Can someone write up the proposed consensus from all of this? I'm ill and it's hard for me to do this at the moment. [[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 23:31, 17 October 2005 (EDT)

::::::I will tomorrow. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:18, 18 October 2005 (EDT)

===Proposal===

Where articles from two different continuities exist with the same or easily confused titles, they should be namespaced with a reference to the series in parenthesis. Appropriate namespaces are:

*(TOS) - Original series
*(RDM) - Re-imagined series
*(Video Game) - 2003 Video Game
*(1980) - Galactica 1980
*(SDS) - Singer/DeSanto continuation

The page at the non-namespaced title should serve as a disambiguation page. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 19:24, 21 October 2005 (EDT)

: I concur; looks good. Should we note the Richard Hatch "Second Coming" info in some way, as it has more material in fact than the DeSanto works. :) --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 01:34, 22 October 2005 (EDT)

::Got a catchy acronym handy? --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 02:12, 22 October 2005 (EDT)

:::Either "SC" (obviously) or "DRM" (for "dream" as "in your dreams") :) Perhaps RH as well. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 04:05, 22 October 2005 (EDT)

::::"SC" and "RH" are the diplomatic alterantives, gentlemen. Others enthusiasts do view this site. --[[User:Watcher|Watcher]] 06:07, 22 October 2005 (EDT)

:: Personally, "SC" works for me. "DRM" is confusing, as this is an acronym for [[Wikipedia:Digital Rights Management|Digital Rights Management]]. (In addition to the point Watcher made regarding its potentially insulting connotation.) -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 14:43, 22 October 2005 (EDT)

::: Ditto, Joe. DRM is also easily confused with RDM. I like SC. Otherwise, looks real good, Peter. --[[User:Day|Day]] 18:11, 22 October 2005 (EDT)

Okay. Since no one's dissented with Peter's proposal, I'm gonna wait a few days, then put it up on the main page with the addition of (SC) for Richard Hatch's "Second Coming" attempt. --[[User:Day|Day]] 12:11, 31 October 2005 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:54, 11 April 2020
Line 57:		Line 57:
	:: Personally, "SC" works for me. "DRM" is confusing, as this is an acronym for [[Wikipedia:Digital Rights Management\|Digital Rights Management]]. (In addition to the point Watcher made regarding its potentially insulting connotation.) -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin\|Joe Beaudoin]] 14:43, 22 October 2005 (EDT)		:: Personally, "SC" works for me. "DRM" is confusing, as this is an acronym for [[Wikipedia:Digital Rights Management\|Digital Rights Management]]. (In addition to the point Watcher made regarding its potentially insulting connotation.) -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin\|Joe Beaudoin]] 14:43, 22 October 2005 (EDT)

	::: Ditto, Joe. DRM is also easily confused with RDM. I like SC. Otherwise, looks real good, ~~Peter~~. --[[User:Day\|Day]] 18:11, 22 October 2005 (EDT)		::: Ditto, Joe. DRM is also easily confused with RDM. I like SC. Otherwise, looks real good, April. --[[User:Day\|Day]] 18:11, 22 October 2005 (EDT)

	Okay. Since no one's dissented with ~~Peter~~'s proposal, I'm gonna wait a few days, then put it up on the main page with the addition of (SC) for Richard Hatch's "Second Coming" attempt. --[[User:Day\|Day]] 12:11, 31 October 2005 (EST)		Okay. Since no one's dissented with April's proposal, I'm gonna wait a few days, then put it up on the main page with the addition of (SC) for Richard Hatch's "Second Coming" attempt. --[[User:Day\|Day]] 12:11, 31 October 2005 (EST)


Line 144:		Line 144:
	: Adendum: By the way, I created two templates: {{tl\|s}} and {{tl\|u}} for <del>striking out</del> and <u>underlining text</u>, respectfully. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin\|Joe Beaudoin]] 14:36, 22 October 2005 (EDT)		: Adendum: By the way, I created two templates: {{tl\|s}} and {{tl\|u}} for <del>striking out</del> and <u>underlining text</u>, respectfully. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin\|Joe Beaudoin]] 14:36, 22 October 2005 (EDT)
	::HTML isn't exactly tasteful, but isn't it preferable to templates? HTML and wikisyntax both retain their formatting if moved to another wiki, but anything formatted with templates won't. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 17:17, 22 October 2005 (EDT)		::HTML isn't exactly tasteful, but isn't it preferable to templates? HTML and wikisyntax both retain their formatting if moved to another wiki, but anything formatted with templates won't. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 17:17, 22 October 2005 (EDT)
	::: Good point, ~~Peter~~... Maybe "hacking" MediaWiki might be an option, so as to create wikisyntax for underlining? Yes, this would undoubtedly create similar problems, but if a patch was submitted to the MediaWiki developers then they may introduce it (or something like it) into future versions of the software. Just a thought... -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin\|Joe Beaudoin]] 18:58, 22 October 2005 (EDT)		::: Good point, April... Maybe "hacking" MediaWiki might be an option, so as to create wikisyntax for underlining? Yes, this would undoubtedly create similar problems, but if a patch was submitted to the MediaWiki developers then they may introduce it (or something like it) into future versions of the software. Just a thought... -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin\|Joe Beaudoin]] 18:58, 22 October 2005 (EDT)

	:::: What would you have the Wiki Markup be? Underscores and dashes, maybe? Might be dangerous, but perhaps it would require two of each in a row? Or three? I was thinking that _underline_ would render <u>underline</u> and that -strike- would render <s>strike</s>. However, I don't want underscores to mess up URLs or for strike-outs to mess up use of the em-dash, which is often substituted by the double-en dash (--). I'd just as soon use the HTML tags (except that it would get in the way of validating the HTML of the Wiki in XHTML 1.0 Strict, if that's a concern). Maybe we could use !!underline!! and !!!strike!!! or something. Ohoh! What about ``underline`` and ```strike```. Of course... you could go nuts and <nowiki>'''''`````italic bold underline strike`````'''''</nowiki> for '''''<u><s>italic bold underline strike</s></u>'''''. Sounds like a fighting more from some anime. Heh. --[[User:Day\|Day]] 05:52, 23 October 2005 (EDT)		:::: What would you have the Wiki Markup be? Underscores and dashes, maybe? Might be dangerous, but perhaps it would require two of each in a row? Or three? I was thinking that _underline_ would render <u>underline</u> and that -strike- would render <s>strike</s>. However, I don't want underscores to mess up URLs or for strike-outs to mess up use of the em-dash, which is often substituted by the double-en dash (--). I'd just as soon use the HTML tags (except that it would get in the way of validating the HTML of the Wiki in XHTML 1.0 Strict, if that's a concern). Maybe we could use !!underline!! and !!!strike!!! or something. Ohoh! What about ``underline`` and ```strike```. Of course... you could go nuts and <nowiki>'''''`````italic bold underline strike`````'''''</nowiki> for '''''<u><s>italic bold underline strike</s></u>'''''. Sounds like a fighting more from some anime. Heh. --[[User:Day\|Day]] 05:52, 23 October 2005 (EDT)
Line 174:		Line 174:
	:::: Well for me personally, that is 9/0ths of the appeal of wanting to work on things at this site. Particularly since BSG in its re-=imagined form is a rich subject to do just that, because of the attention to detail and "realism" as the underlying ethos of the show. Having a robust wiki that reenforces and builds out upon that quality of the show is, to my mind, ideal. Not saying you have to want that to, but it is a real cold shower for me perosnally. Just my 2/100ths of a cubits worth. — [[User:Lestatdelc\|Lestatdelc]] 20:53, 3 December 2005 (EST)		:::: Well for me personally, that is 9/0ths of the appeal of wanting to work on things at this site. Particularly since BSG in its re-=imagined form is a rich subject to do just that, because of the attention to detail and "realism" as the underlying ethos of the show. Having a robust wiki that reenforces and builds out upon that quality of the show is, to my mind, ideal. Not saying you have to want that to, but it is a real cold shower for me perosnally. Just my 2/100ths of a cubits worth. — [[User:Lestatdelc\|Lestatdelc]] 20:53, 3 December 2005 (EST)

	::::I can appreciate Lestatdelc's arguments on using present-tense, and it took me a bit to digest, but I agree with the standing convention. I've recently discovered the Star Trek Memory Alpha wiki (wow, and to think such a wiki could be done is amazing to me) and reviewed a few pages at random. Many use past tense there, but some, like the page on the excellent episode, [http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/The_Enterprise_Incident "The Enterprise Incident"], is successfully written in present-tense. I suspect that Memory Alpha hasn't a verb tense convention there, but note how the active-tense generates a feel of the characters ''doing'' something, rather than being "historical". As ~~Peter~~ explained to me, fictional characters are always in the act of doing something each time you read or watch them--and after a time I realized how correct he was--it keeps the characterization alive to me and to the article. The use of the verb tense also makes it more challenging to write the article as good fiction tends to evolve--in an active voice. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 10:15, 2 December 2005 (EST)		::::I can appreciate Lestatdelc's arguments on using present-tense, and it took me a bit to digest, but I agree with the standing convention. I've recently discovered the Star Trek Memory Alpha wiki (wow, and to think such a wiki could be done is amazing to me) and reviewed a few pages at random. Many use past tense there, but some, like the page on the excellent episode, [http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/The_Enterprise_Incident "The Enterprise Incident"], is successfully written in present-tense. I suspect that Memory Alpha hasn't a verb tense convention there, but note how the active-tense generates a feel of the characters ''doing'' something, rather than being "historical". As April explained to me, fictional characters are always in the act of doing something each time you read or watch them--and after a time I realized how correct he was--it keeps the characterization alive to me and to the article. The use of the verb tense also makes it more challenging to write the article as good fiction tends to evolve--in an active voice. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 10:15, 2 December 2005 (EST)

	::::::But we in theory are not advancing the story but discussing what has occurred on the show and describing the details of the universe presented in the show (as well as "about the show(s) themselves). If we take the notion of suspension of disbelief at face value, and imagine the events of BSG not being fiction and documenting the events and details there of, particularly in encyclopedic form we would present events which have occurred as past tense, and present status and ongoing things in present tense. What ~~Peter~~ has said up-thread is that there is no interest in such a thing for him personally (and it would seem that most concur) I would consider it unfortunate as this is a great missed opportunity. I think that such "false document" mystique is actually something that has rather large appeal, witness the massive industry of such things in the ''Star Trek'' fandom, from blueprints, tech manuals, omnipedias, and the entire supplemental industry to the RPG medium. As for other projects about fictional stories and their universes, I would point to things like the [http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.asp The Encyclopedia of Arda] which is based on the Tolkien universe. I don't wish to be a disrupting presence here, especially being a "nugget" as it were, but I think this is a bad call for a missed opportunity. I can envision a clear convention which would allow for discussing each incarnation of the series and the "about the show" aspect in tandem with the "in universe" repository of content about said universe in the style of such things as the Trek universe things of Omnipedia, Concodrance, Tech Manuls, etc. and the Arda/Tolkien examples. — [[User:Lestatdelc\|Lestatdelc]] 20:53, 3 December 2005 (EST)		::::::But we in theory are not advancing the story but discussing what has occurred on the show and describing the details of the universe presented in the show (as well as "about the show(s) themselves). If we take the notion of suspension of disbelief at face value, and imagine the events of BSG not being fiction and documenting the events and details there of, particularly in encyclopedic form we would present events which have occurred as past tense, and present status and ongoing things in present tense. What April has said up-thread is that there is no interest in such a thing for him personally (and it would seem that most concur) I would consider it unfortunate as this is a great missed opportunity. I think that such "false document" mystique is actually something that has rather large appeal, witness the massive industry of such things in the ''Star Trek'' fandom, from blueprints, tech manuals, omnipedias, and the entire supplemental industry to the RPG medium. As for other projects about fictional stories and their universes, I would point to things like the [http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.asp The Encyclopedia of Arda] which is based on the Tolkien universe. I don't wish to be a disrupting presence here, especially being a "nugget" as it were, but I think this is a bad call for a missed opportunity. I can envision a clear convention which would allow for discussing each incarnation of the series and the "about the show" aspect in tandem with the "in universe" repository of content about said universe in the style of such things as the Trek universe things of Omnipedia, Concodrance, Tech Manuls, etc. and the Arda/Tolkien examples. — [[User:Lestatdelc\|Lestatdelc]] 20:53, 3 December 2005 (EST)


Line 229:		Line 229:
	::I'm in favor of moving Steelviper's Island of Misfit Images to the Battlestar Wiki namespace, under its current title. I'd like requested images to remain a separate page, although they should be cross-linked to each other. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 01:39, 20 January 2006 (EST)		::I'm in favor of moving Steelviper's Island of Misfit Images to the Battlestar Wiki namespace, under its current title. I'd like requested images to remain a separate page, although they should be cross-linked to each other. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 01:39, 20 January 2006 (EST)

	::: Why's that, ~~Peter~~? Just for ease of finding for new users or so that all those images aren't on the requested page (we were thinking, or I was, that the Island would be a sub-page of whatever project it became part of) or what? --[[User:Day\|Day]] 03:05, 20 January 2006 (EST)		::: Why's that, April? Just for ease of finding for new users or so that all those images aren't on the requested page (we were thinking, or I was, that the Island would be a sub-page of whatever project it became part of) or what? --[[User:Day\|Day]] 03:05, 20 January 2006 (EST)

	::::It's no favor to my position that I can't articulate my point well, but I just don't feel that either image requests or image deletions would be a logical subcategory of the other. Better just to have Image Requests refer users to check the Island before making a request, and the Island refer users to Image Requests before deleting an image. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 10:47, 20 January 2006 (EST)		::::It's no favor to my position that I can't articulate my point well, but I just don't feel that either image requests or image deletions would be a logical subcategory of the other. Better just to have Image Requests refer users to check the Island before making a request, and the Island refer users to Image Requests before deleting an image. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 10:47, 20 January 2006 (EST)