Editing Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive3

{{archive-message
| start = March 17th, 2006
| end = April 25th, 2006
| newarchive = 4
| sig = [[User:Shane|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]])</sup> 12:31, 24 June 2006 (CDT)
}}

We seem to have agreed new standards for the Question's section. However, the Analysis section of a lot of pages is similarly riddled with discussion and dispute. Should this also be reigned in?

: Yes. Now... How, Exactly? --[[User:Day|Day]] 04:53, 17 March 2006 (CST)
:: At the risk of making it sound simpler than it is, we apply much the same standard. We go through Analysis sections and see where discussions can be boiled back down into concise points or where follow-on comments can simply be eliminated. Just as we've refocused "Questions" on "Questions the Episode Asks and Does Not Answer", we refocus "Analysis" on actually analysing the episode as a story rather than on nitpicking technobabble or speculating on unanswered questions :-)
::I'm also starting to think that it may behoove us to simple create a separate "Speculations" section if we feel like we don't want to completely eliminate speculation from the site. I'm not sold on it, tho'. Just pondering.--[[User:UncleMikey|Uncle Mikey]] 10:25, 17 March 2006 (CST)

::: I think we should shoot speculation as often as we find it, except where it is clearly marked. And I don't think we should let it become rampant. We moved all the Cylon Agent speculation stuff off of each character's page and onto a speculation page, for instance. I don't want to get into encouraging speculation on every single episode page. I like the Purge and Clense idea posed above by someone who didn't sign their post. --[[User:Day|Day]] 21:29, 18 March 2006 (CST)

:::: The unsigned post was me, and the lack of signature an oversight. Sorry :-) --[[User:UncleMikey|Uncle Mikey]] 09:36, 19 March 2006 (CST)

Although I agree that Question sections need '''extensive concision''' as we saw on LDYB II, one of the strengths of BattlestarWiki is that we have Questions and ''probable answers based on evidence''; if we remove ''all'' answers as was done on the recent revision to LDYB II, we remove one of the ''greatest'' features of ''BattlestarWiki''.  I feel that answers to questions should be kept shorter than 2 lines, but so long as they stay on one line, and we don't run into a debate back and forth of like 5 things, we should keep them.  And if there is a debate it goes to Analysis.  I am adamant about this.  --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] 00:19, 19 March 2006 (CST)

: If a question has a probable answer based on evidence, then it simply isn't a question any more :-) I'm OK with the idea that we use the Question section to gather answers and possibly gain Analysis points that way, but once we have those answers, the questions should be moved or removed (or, if the answers are purely speculative, the answers purged).

: I also disagree that Analysis should be used for debate. There is no section of the encyclopedic pages that should be used for debate. That's what Talk pages are for. Analysis does not mean, "This is where we nitpick the episode and each others' points to death". It should ultimately read like one person analyzing the episode. Someone suggested it should even be reformatted at some point into a narrative rather than bulleted presentation, and I agree.

: It's not that I don't agree that one of the strengths of this sort of site is bringing fans together to talk out and even occasionally to nitpick. It's just that I think that's what Talk pages are for, not encyclopedic pages. --[[User:UncleMikey|Uncle Mikey]] 09:36, 19 March 2006 (CST)

No.  The point is that we aren't bringing up "speculation" but that we are pointing out facts, back and forth.  For example, "Was Cain lying to Starbuck about wanting to take back the Colonies?" could be followed by "Cain has been seen to be manipulative" followed by "Cain also honestly seems to want to take the fight back to the Cylons", etc.  Yes, there are "Questions" and it ''remains'' a questions even if we offer ''insight'' into it.  No, we should not move the questions once these points have been raised.  Analsis is not officially "debate" but it is what it's name implies; "Analaysis" i.e. counterpoints and so forth, based on Fact; that is, not just listing our opinions, but weighing the facts against each other.  Either way, the rules are loose when it comes to Analysis.  '''No, it should not be moved into a narrative format; that's more confusing than a point by point bulleted list'''.  No, this is not what Talk pages are for.  Talk pages are just for discussion about what should go on the front, but let me reiterate; '''Remove this feature of the questions and you would GUT the best feature of BattlestarWiki'''.  ------>I want the section on the front of this article of Standards and Questions describing how we handle Questions to be revised.--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] 13:21, 19 March 2006 (CST)

: I think, Merv, that you and I have a fundamental disagreement on what the best feature of this Wiki is. And it's odd, because from what I've seen so far, you're actually a provider of what I think the best feature actually is: solid, detailed, well-researched and defensible information about the series, its stories, and its characters. The example you offer is a good one, but the moment good insight is provided for the question like that, I feel it could be moved to Analysis. Or, in this specific example, edited together to remain an unanswered question, but without the sense that people are "discussing" something, which has no place on encyclopedic pages: "On the one hand, Cain can be manipulative. On the other hand, Cain honestly seems to want to take the fight back to the Cylons. So: was Cain lying about wanting to take back the Colonies?" When all is said and done, if the Wiki is dedicated to Neutral Point of View, then encyclopedic pages need not to sound like they're arguing with themselves.--[[User:UncleMikey|Uncle Mikey]] 22:41, 20 March 2006 (CST)

:In case there is any confusion about what I am saying we need it's; "Let's just keep doing what we've BEEN doing, and when a Question section like LDYB II's gets a little messy, ''clean it up as the situation requires''.--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] 13:23, 19 March 2006 (CST)

::It seems like these sections (in both Espisode and Character guides) are getting very large and when someone is trying to save even a minor edit we will get an Overflow error. You might have seen it before. http://www.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Joe_Beaudoin_Jr.#Error_Message It might be better to place both of these sections of new pages. (i.e. LBYB, II, Question/Analysis). --[[User:Shane|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]])</sup> 19:16, 20 March 2006 (CST)

Before I resume my attack on the "Questions" section, I would appreciate it if other frequent editors and admins could chime in explicitly on whether we still like the guidelines I posted to the Standards and Conventions page, as discussed on LYOB II's talk page, or whether more people feel Merv is right and we shouldn't be quite so strict as I've proposed (and executed on LYOB I and II)... I would prefer not to take silence for assent only to have a bunch of stuff reverted later because it was widely thought I was too quick with my knife :-) --[[User:UncleMikey|Uncle Mikey]] 14:20, 22 March 2006 (CST)

:I guess part of if really depends on if it is just "Questions" or if it is "Unanswered Questions". I don't mind the occassional answer, but it's the ones three deep with conflicting/argumentative answers ([[The Captain's Hand#Questions]]) that bug me. But I guess just shifting them down to analysis doesn't really change anything. I'm torn. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 14:44, 22 March 2006 (CST)

:I haven't commented much because I agree with practically everything you've said on this subject. It's been bothering me for some time, but I haven't had the energy to tackle the issue. I congratulate you for having the fortitude to take this on — you have my unconditional support on this one. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 16:40, 22 March 2006 (CST)

== Disambiguation Location ==

We should note that Disambiguation for pages that have more than one meaning should go on the top line of the page, below any "Global" template areas, such as delete, but above such Templates as "Episode Guide", "Character Data", and "Battle Template" area so the text stand out more. Otherwise it is cramped on between the left coloum and the right table and seems like part of the article, rather than Disambiguation data. It should also be tabed once and always italized. '''Comments?''' --[[User:Shane|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]])</sup> 19:09, 20 March 2006 (CST)

: Your choice of words seems very presumptious. I would have said something like, "I like the look of one tab and italics" or "The current convention seems to be..." or whatever, rather than being so proscriptive. I agree that we probably need a standard on this. One tab and italics is fine with me. Just noting that your attitude seems very... controntational. Does anyone else think a different formatting is better? --[[User:Day|Day]] <sup>([[User talk:Day|talk]])</sup> 20:37, 20 March 2006 (CST)

::Well, that formatting is what I use and prefer, at any rate. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 21:04, 20 March 2006 (CST)

::The convention I've always used is the same convention at Wikipedia. Tab one and italicize. So say we all. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] 08:16, 21 March 2006 (CST)

::: Good enough for me. If someone dissents, we can remove it, but for now, I've put this on the S&C page, as I understand it from Shane's post. By your command. --[[User:Day|Day]] <sup>([[User talk:Day|talk]])</sup> 00:48, 29 March 2006 (CST)

== Cast pages Overview section ==

Most of the cast articles have a section titled "Overview" instead of just using the first paragraph as the overview like normal wiki articles. I want to change them all. Any objections?--[[User:Bp|Bp]] 22:24, 21 March 2006 (CST)
:Plah. I just noticed all the articles are this way, even [[Lay Down Your Burdens, Part I|episodes]]. Withdrawn. --[[User:Bp|Bp]] 00:36, 22 March 2006 (CST)

== Template Font Size and Design ==

I don't like the size of the font in most of the templates. That's my option of course. So I wanted to  bring it up. [[Template:Ship_Data|This template of the Ship Data]] is a good example of the size of the text that I think is better than the bold, large text. Also we should always wikicode the templates. I put up a number of examples on how they are created. Also for the top of these type of templates we should maybe have the red bar along. Here is a [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/en/index.php?title=Template:Star_Data&oldid=40890 link] of an old verion and then there the version that is active right now which is [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/en/index.php?title=Template:Star_Data&direction=next&oldid=40890 this]. The Small text keeps everything balanced with the artcile font.

Template that would be effected would be:

*Episode_Data
*Ship_Data
*Star_Data (Being Renamed)
*Character_Data
*Book_Data

Just a thought... :) --[[User:Shane|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]])</sup> 00:24, 22 March 2006 (CST)

==Succession Boxes==
Anything with only one person in a box, like "Laura Roslin" as the ''only'' entry in a succession box for Secretary of Education, is redundant and excessive; it's not necessary, clutters up the page, and it simply makes little sense to do so. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]])</sup> 00:25, 26 March 2006 (CST)

I mistakenly posted this on the front page first (oops); this is my proposed addition:

"Succession boxes, such as those for holders of a political office or a command position aboard a ship, should not be created unless at least two separate articles can be linked to using such a box".   --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]])</sup> 00:32, 26 March 2006 (CST)

:If a goverment is supposed to be able to be listed in any part of someone's bio (i.e. We could do Billy and Toni as People who were aides to President Roslen and then Felix Gata to Giaus Baltar) on '''Succession''' boxes, including Vice-President, or Assitants to the President of the Colonies, or CAG, XO, or CO, or anything that has an order, it should be included. A great example is [[Lee Adama]]'s page, and I didn't even add the other ones; An '''''Admin''''' did. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]])</sup> 00:31, 26 March 2006 (CST)

::Some of these simply do not make sense, however:  why make Gaeta have a box that says "assistant to President Baltar" when he's the ''only one''?  The entire concept of adding in extra link boxes is to keep the navigation ''more'' easy to use, but this has been taken to the point that it's just cluttering things up without adding anything truly useful or necessary; I mean the links to Baltar are already in there, or in his character box as a former position.  It is impractical and unwieldy. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]])</sup> 00:35, 26 March 2006 (CST)
:::People love timelines and orders. To get the quick skimmy of things, people look at these. They have been used all over Poiltical pages sorting out who has had what. So maybe we should delete the ones that have just One person attached to it? There is no harm in it being there no more than the "Job" section in the Character template. Guess what? If I were a normal person, I like the boxes, because it answers an interesting question, has there been any secertary's in goverment thus far other than the President's spot. Maybe one of these days we will see a show where there is a meeting with all the members. She even talks about it in Minisersi where she knew all 52 before here. (was it 52? can't remember.) Someone had to be before her and before Adars Administration. My edit was also there and admins been on the site before you came along an removed it. It seemed they had no problem with it being there. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]])</sup> 00:41, 26 March 2006 (CST)
::::Not having it answers the question even quicker. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] 02:32, 26 March 2006 (CST)
::::I'm with Merv on this one. Having looked at some code for various templates, I see that there's a trick that can be used for hiding sections that don't actually have any data. That should be used here.--[[User:UncleMikey|Uncle Mikey]] 08:01, 26 March 2006 (CST)
:::::That's is incredibly cool UncleMikey; I didn't know the wikicode could let us do that.  Reall cool; I agree with Uncle Mikey's idea. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]])</sup> 19:44, 26 March 2006 (CST)
::::::I'm still not entirely sure how it works. It appears to actually be a CSS trick rather than a true WikiCode trick. Take a look at the CharacterData template, tho', and then experiment with it in a sandbox or on your own userpage (as I did in mine). Leave stuff out of the template-invocation...the line is completely omitted. Very slick.--[[User:UncleMikey|Uncle Mikey]] 19:49, 26 March 2006 (CST)

:''Copied from [[Talk:Laura Roslin]]:''
:I'd say it's okay to have an unfilled succession box where it helps to illustrate the career of a particular character - that is, if they have completed succession boxes, they could also have unfilled ones as appropriate (thus, for example, we can see Baltar's progression from Caprican delegate to VP to President without needing to know who preceded or succeeded him as the Caprican delegate). --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 09:42, 26 March 2006 (CST)

::But Peter that is redundant with the "roles" section of the template at the top of the article.  I think we should not do it. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]])</sup> 19:45, 26 March 2006 (CST)

:: No more redundant than succession boxes for the presidency. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] 19:53, 26 March 2006 (CST)

:::Not so.  The succession boxes allow a visitor to see who has been president, or who has been commanding a ship, in succession.  This is not always covered in one article about a character-->boxes about what a character has done over time, well that's just in the article itself, and it is in their "role" subheader anyway. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]])</sup> 20:13, 26 March 2006 (CST)
::::So you would say the one Succession box under [[Gauis Baltar]] should not be there? How come you have not deleted that one. You can not be picky. It's either ALL or NONE. You can't just change it because I added it. You been doing it to them all over the place this evening, without consulting anyone before you did it. I like to remind you that this is a community Wiki, and not yours and not mine. But everyone's. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]])</sup> 20:29, 26 March 2006 (CST)

:::::Although I can abide by Gaius Baltar having a succession box without anyone on his left or right, it seems a little ridiculous to add them to all the other delegates who haven't gone on to serve in other capacities. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 21:07, 26 March 2006 (CST)
::::Gaius's has been their longer. I have to look to see when, but my addistoin caught the eye of merv and he edited it right out. As far as the others, if we see another meeting of the 12, and they have changed at least they are there to start off with. The only one I didn't add was the one where no one understands which delgete he belongs to. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]])</sup> 21:13, 26 March 2006 (CST)

:Peter you and I have had our differences before and this I regret; I hope that in the end, they were actually constructive.  But what Shane has been doing is in direct violation of Wikiettiquette:  "this is a community wiki, and not youra and not mine..."-->"so do exactly what *I* want to do!" is what you are saying?  This is irrational; Shane we are DEBATING whether to do this, and you '''went ahead and added more of these things to the Quorum of Twelve Delegates?'''  "Why didn't you remove the box from Baltar then, Merv?--->Because after I made the change to Kat as a TEST, I moved the discussion HERE, to Standards and Conventions!  I FROZE what I was doing after it was *brought up as an issue*---->You have not listened when cautioned by myself or Peter to pause your editing when it comes into debate; you've gone ahead and edited dozens of pages, and then complained that ''I'' was directly attacking you, simply because I question the veracity of this?  And intermixed with this you've been dropping...regretable threats, actual threats onto this wiki, while I try to debate our policy using the civil rules which we have established.  Peter, should Shane keep doing this?  I will defer to your decisions, as I do not desire a revert war....but there are limited to how far things have gone Peter, you know that.  I am going to revert Shane's edits to the Quorum members to bring them back to EXACTLY what they were before this debate began; change them when this debate has finished, accordingly.  --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]])</sup> 21:40, 26 March 2006 (CST)
::Better yet, leave that as "Peter, I implore you yourself to make these edits to restore the old versions of these articles to their pre-debate conditions, and freeze them there until it is finished".  That would be better than me doing it. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]])</sup> 21:42, 26 March 2006 (CST)
:::Naturally, I will alter the articles to fit the consensus as soon as one emerges, if no one else does. However, I will not protect the pages under these circumstances. This is an issue which can be worked out here in a relatively prompt fashion if we all abandon ad hominem attacks and focus on the merits of one another's positions.
:::Your issues with Shane as a user, while certainly relevant in a broad sense, are not appropriate to discuss here. If you feel the need, you should open an [[BW:RFC|RFC]] detailing your concerns. The community may then decide if they are well-founded and settle on an appropriate remedy if necessary. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 23:13, 26 March 2006 (CST)
::::I bear no grudge against Shane, Peter.  My concern is with his actions.  Yes, it would be better to handle this in a more prompt fashion which does not require freezing, you are correct. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]])</sup> 23:26, 26 March 2006 (CST)

===Proposed Compromise===
:''This is my preferred solution; I offer it up for consideration and comment by other concerned users.''
In general, succession boxes should be avoided when neither the predecessor nor the successor to a particular position is known. An exception can be made in the case of a character who already has succession boxes with at least some information, to present a concise depiction of that character's career path.
:''Please comment below.'' --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 23:21, 26 March 2006 (CST)

::Well, I must say that I really liked mine more; as I already said above, I think the roles box already does that, bio too, etc. etc. etc.  I was curious how many would prefer my original proposal instead of this compromise.  However, this is not an insane compromise, and I actually think I could live with it.  I'm not overly fond of it, but I like it's call for disgression.  Okay, Peter, lets just see how many people go one way or the other.  This is a pretty good compromise, though. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]])</sup> 23:29, 26 March 2006 (CST)

::This is fine. I have no problem with it. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] 11:02, 27 March 2006 (CST)

:: I'd be fine with this. I'd be fine with saying that a box with two "Unknown"s shouldn't be there. Either is fine with me. I am not particularly swayed by the career path reasoning, but can see the thinking. Anyway, this seems alright. And, also, this allows for decisions to be made on a case-by-case basis. For instance, it would be kind of silly to have, a ton of (effectively) empty succession boxs on someone's page simply because they had one filled box. I can't think of an example, but imagine someone who had held several jobs that no one else had held before or since (to our knowledge) and then was ''Galactica's'' CAG. No reason to have all ''billion'' boxes, but it might be useful to have one or two if they were somehow more important roles. --[[User:Day|Day]] <sup>([[User talk:Day|talk]])</sup> 00:59, 29 March 2006 (CST)

== Regarding excerpts from larger articles in other pages ==

As [[Number Six#Gina]] or [[History of the Twelve Colonies#Fall of the Twelve Colonies]]? --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] 14:02, 17 April 2006 (CDT)
:These are overview pages, with a specific event having it's own page (Fall) and as for Gina, it was decided that copies that gain distinct personalities and become distinct characters get their own character page, so the Gina material got put in a separate article, but a brief description and link was left behind.  --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]])</sup> 14:07, 17 April 2006 (CDT)
::Yes I understand that, but the links are given differently in these two places. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] 14:18, 17 April 2006 (CDT)
:::For clarity.  One if for an event, one for characters.  --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]])</sup> 14:40, 17 April 2006 (CDT)
:::I prefer the formatting on History of the Twelve Colonies, which I borrowed from Wikipedia. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 21:21, 17 April 2006 (CDT)
::::I rather obviously agree, but I could see a reasonable person differing; I do think we should have a policy, though. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] 21:59, 17 April 2006 (CDT)
:::::I still think so. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] 01:22, 20 April 2006 (CDT)

== Regarding succession box formats ==
{{start box}}
{{succession box|before=''(unknown)''|title=Executive Officer of the [[Mercury class battlestar|battlestar]] ''[[Pegasus (RDM)|Pegasus]]''|after=''(unknown; eventually [[Lee Adama]])}}
{{end box}}
looks ugly; specifically, "(unknown; eventually [[Lee Adama]])"
It's also inconsistent with
{{start box}}
{{succession box|before=''(unknown, eventually [[Jack Fisk]])''|title=Executive Officer of the [[Mercury class battlestar|battlestar]] ''[[Pegasus (RDM)|Pegasus]]''|after=''(unknown, eventually [[Anastasia Dualla]])}}
{{end box}}
from [[Lee Adama]] and the versions of [[Peter Dash]] both before and after I changed it. I'd prefer "Unknown, eventually Foo" , "Unknown" , and "No one" all without parentheses. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] 01:22, 20 April 2006 (CDT)

:For me, the italics serve the highlight the paucity of information, although I guess I'm not married to them. I don't think "unknown" should ever be capitalized, though, as it isn't a proper noun. Where would "No one" be applicable? --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:28, 20 April 2006 (CDT)
::I was applying initial capitalization based on its application to captions, section titles, and the like. [[Peter Dash]] is an example for "No one" , although I can live with "None" ...to the point that I have no preference between them. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] 02:15, 20 April 2006 (CDT)
:::I think "none" sounds better personally. I have no further objection if you want to restyle the rest of these. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 02:18, 20 April 2006 (CDT)

== Archives Pages ==

Well.. There are two ways I think this could be handled.
#Arcives namespace (subpages needed incase their becomes two or more pages)
#Current way for this page

Personally, I would like the namespace "Archives" so it could be searched independlty away from the talk pages. The listing of the archives though, should be done like this page. Relevent topic only should be archived.

Thoughts? --[[User:Shane|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]])</sup> 12:12, 25 April 2006 (CDT)

:No new namespaces, please. I prefer the oldid link method for user talk pages, and archive subpages off of the "Battlestar Wiki talk" namespace for project pages. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 18:52, 25 April 2006 (CDT)

:Having more boxes to check when running a search for some discussion would be bad. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] 22:21, 25 April 2006 (CDT)