Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions - Revision history

Joe Beaudoin Jr.: /* Quorum */ reply

2010-10-30T17:02:38Z

Quorum: reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:02, 30 October 2010
Line 67:		Line 67:

	Can we get rid of the standard that Quorum members must be referred to as delegates rather than representatives (under "Character Names and Titles"), given that Roslin referred to "twelve perpetually unhappy representatives" in the seventh episode of Season Four? -- [[User:Noneofyourbusiness\|Noneofyourbusiness]] 15:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)		Can we get rid of the standard that Quorum members must be referred to as delegates rather than representatives (under "Character Names and Titles"), given that Roslin referred to "twelve perpetually unhappy representatives" in the seventh episode of Season Four? -- [[User:Noneofyourbusiness\|Noneofyourbusiness]] 15:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
			: [[Battlestar_Wiki_talk:Standards_and_Conventions/Archive1#Quorum_of_Twelve\|Review this]] for why we use "delegate," the more precise term than "representative." -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]]</sup> 17:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Noneofyourbusiness: /* Quorum */ new section

2010-10-30T15:16:33Z

Quorum: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:16, 30 October 2010
Line 63:		Line 63:

	: It's a mishmash, in practice. Generally speaking, putting commas ''outside'' of quotation marks makes tremendously more sense, and is far better stylistically. As with everything else American, we aren't exactly the greatest at making things efficient. For instance, we still haven't implemented widescale use of the Metric system, despite the fact that we're only one of maybe two or three countries who still use the "English" garbage while everyone else has converted some time ago. Anachronisms die hard, unfortunately. -- [[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> 14:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)		: It's a mishmash, in practice. Generally speaking, putting commas ''outside'' of quotation marks makes tremendously more sense, and is far better stylistically. As with everything else American, we aren't exactly the greatest at making things efficient. For instance, we still haven't implemented widescale use of the Metric system, despite the fact that we're only one of maybe two or three countries who still use the "English" garbage while everyone else has converted some time ago. Anachronisms die hard, unfortunately. -- [[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> 14:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

			== Quorum ==

			Can we get rid of the standard that Quorum members must be referred to as delegates rather than representatives (under "Character Names and Titles"), given that Roslin referred to "twelve perpetually unhappy representatives" in the seventh episode of Season Four? -- [[User:Noneofyourbusiness\|Noneofyourbusiness]] 15:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

ArchiveBot: Archiving 8 thread(s) (older than 14d) to Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive5, Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive4.

2009-11-02T16:51:07Z

Archiving 8 thread(s) (older than 14d) to Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive5, Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive4.

Show changes

Joe Beaudoin Jr.: /* Logical punctuation */ reply

2008-08-18T14:47:14Z

Logical punctuation: reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:47, 18 August 2008
Line 182:		Line 182:

	While I'd prefer logical punctuation everywhere, I'm not really saying that we should change it over officially. Just pointing out that we have an inconsistency here. People use different styles and while one article may be consistent in itself, some others are formatted differently. -- [[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 14:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)		While I'd prefer logical punctuation everywhere, I'm not really saying that we should change it over officially. Just pointing out that we have an inconsistency here. People use different styles and while one article may be consistent in itself, some others are formatted differently. -- [[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 14:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

			: It's a mishmash, in practice. Generally speaking, putting commas ''outside'' of quotation marks makes tremendously more sense, and is far better stylistically. As with everything else American, we aren't exactly the greatest at making things efficient. For instance, we still haven't implemented widescale use of the Metric system, despite the fact that we're only one of maybe two or three countries who still use the "English" garbage while everyone else has converted some time ago. Anachronisms die hard, unfortunately. -- [[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> 14:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Serenity: /* Logical punctuation */

2008-08-18T14:37:13Z

Logical punctuation

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:37, 18 August 2008
Line 177:		Line 177:
	== Logical punctuation ==		== Logical punctuation ==

	After seeing the link in the edit summary I just noticed that [[w:Manual_of_Style#Punctuation\|Wikipedia uses logical punctuation]]. Interesting. I thought they used American punctuation, but in practice it's probably completely mixed just as here.		After seeing the link in the edit summary I just noticed that [[w:Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Punctuation\|Wikipedia uses logical punctuation]]. Interesting. I thought they used American punctuation, but in practice it's probably completely mixed just as here.

	I was under the impression that we mostly used American punctuation here, but it appears that the Season 4 articles, at least, use logical punctuation almost exclusively (before Passivity changed them). While the SAC says we use American punctuation, in fact there is a lot of logical one as well. Personally I generally use that as well, because I'm used to it and American punctuation just doesn't make the slightest lick of sense. It's just a stupid holdover from the days when the publications where typeset and there was a technical reason to print them inside. These days, many scientific publications for example are switching over to what the rest of the rest of the world does: place the punctuation marks where they actually belong.		I was under the impression that we mostly used American punctuation here, but it appears that the Season 4 articles, at least, use logical punctuation almost exclusively (before Passivity changed them). While the SAC says we use American punctuation, in fact there is a lot of logical one as well. Personally I generally use that as well, because I'm used to it and American punctuation just doesn't make the slightest lick of sense. It's just a stupid holdover from the days when the publications where typeset and there was a technical reason to print them inside. These days, many scientific publications for example are switching over to what the rest of the rest of the world does: place the punctuation marks where they actually belong.

	While I'd prefer logical punctuation everywhere, I'm not really saying that we should change it over officially. Just pointing out that we have an inconsistency here. People use different styles and while one article may be consistent in itself, some others are formatted differently. -- [[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 14:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)		While I'd prefer logical punctuation everywhere, I'm not really saying that we should change it over officially. Just pointing out that we have an inconsistency here. People use different styles and while one article may be consistent in itself, some others are formatted differently. -- [[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 14:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Serenity: Logical punctuation. Not a request for a change really, but there is some inconsistency here

2008-08-18T14:34:59Z

Logical punctuation. Not a request for a change really, but there is some inconsistency here

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:34, 18 August 2008
Line 174:		Line 174:
	::The pilot vs. other stuff convention is a long-standing one that's followed pretty closely. However, I should reiterate that even ''if'' we decide to introduce people as Kara "Starbuck" Thrace, we should only call them that ''once'' and use their callsign or surname (whichever is appropriate) from there on, just like we do when introducing normal people (i.e. "William Adama ... Adama ... Adama"). --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 21:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)		::The pilot vs. other stuff convention is a long-standing one that's followed pretty closely. However, I should reiterate that even ''if'' we decide to introduce people as Kara "Starbuck" Thrace, we should only call them that ''once'' and use their callsign or surname (whichever is appropriate) from there on, just like we do when introducing normal people (i.e. "William Adama ... Adama ... Adama"). --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 21:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::No one is suggesting to use it several times for one character. It's just about the introduction, and what you say is more or less what's done at the moment. But I think doing it in every introduction already creates formulaic sentences, because it's generally done either at the beginning of a paragraph and/or a sentence. IMO this isn't something that should be standardized so clearly that it needs to be done every time, but only when really needed, so that it doesn't impede the prose. For example it's superfluous when a character hardly plays a role in the text, or if subsequent references only use the real name anyways. At least with main characters. As said, when talking about people like Racetrack or Hot Dog, who are really referred to by their names, noting the callsign makes some sense. -- [[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 21:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)		:::No one is suggesting to use it several times for one character. It's just about the introduction, and what you say is more or less what's done at the moment. But I think doing it in every introduction already creates formulaic sentences, because it's generally done either at the beginning of a paragraph and/or a sentence. IMO this isn't something that should be standardized so clearly that it needs to be done every time, but only when really needed, so that it doesn't impede the prose. For example it's superfluous when a character hardly plays a role in the text, or if subsequent references only use the real name anyways. At least with main characters. As said, when talking about people like Racetrack or Hot Dog, who are really referred to by their names, noting the callsign makes some sense. -- [[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 21:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

			== Logical punctuation ==

			After seeing the link in the edit summary I just noticed that [[w:Manual_of_Style#Punctuation\|Wikipedia uses logical punctuation]]. Interesting. I thought they used American punctuation, but in practice it's probably completely mixed just as here.

			I was under the impression that we mostly used American punctuation here, but it appears that the Season 4 articles, at least, use logical punctuation almost exclusively (before Passivity changed them). While the SAC says we use American punctuation, in fact there is a lot of logical one as well. Personally I generally use that as well, because I'm used to it and American punctuation just doesn't make the slightest lick of sense. It's just a stupid holdover from the days when the publications where typeset and there was a technical reason to print them inside. These days, many scientific publications for example are switching over to what the rest of the rest of the world does: place the punctuation marks where they actually belong.

			While I'd prefer logical punctuation everywhere, I'm not really saying that we should change it over officially. Just pointing out that we have an inconsistency here. People use different styles and while one article may be consistent in itself, some others are formatted differently. -- [[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 14:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Serenity: /* Name and Callsign Standardization */ grammar

2008-05-23T21:31:04Z

Name and Callsign Standardization: grammar

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:31, 23 May 2008
Line 173:		Line 173:
	:At the same time, I think we kinda agreed that callsigns are appropriate for piloty actions. So using Racetrack exclusively in the battle article would be appropriate (though she can be introduced with callsign + name), whereas, in a scene in Joe's bar for example, her real name should be used instead. -- [[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 20:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)		:At the same time, I think we kinda agreed that callsigns are appropriate for piloty actions. So using Racetrack exclusively in the battle article would be appropriate (though she can be introduced with callsign + name), whereas, in a scene in Joe's bar for example, her real name should be used instead. -- [[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 20:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
	::The pilot vs. other stuff convention is a long-standing one that's followed pretty closely. However, I should reiterate that even ''if'' we decide to introduce people as Kara "Starbuck" Thrace, we should only call them that ''once'' and use their callsign or surname (whichever is appropriate) from there on, just like we do when introducing normal people (i.e. "William Adama ... Adama ... Adama"). --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 21:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)		::The pilot vs. other stuff convention is a long-standing one that's followed pretty closely. However, I should reiterate that even ''if'' we decide to introduce people as Kara "Starbuck" Thrace, we should only call them that ''once'' and use their callsign or surname (whichever is appropriate) from there on, just like we do when introducing normal people (i.e. "William Adama ... Adama ... Adama"). --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 21:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::No one is suggesting to use it several times for one character. It's just about the introduction, and what you say is more or less what's done at the moment. But I think doing it in every introduction already creates formulaic sentences, because it's generally done either at the beginning of a paragraph and/or a sentence. IMO this isn't something that should be standardized so clearly that it needs to be done every time, but only when really needed, so that it doesn't impede the prose. For example it's superfluous when a character hardly plays a role in the text, or if subsequent references only use the real name anyways. At least with main characters. As said, when talking about people like Racetrack or Hot Dog, ~~which~~ are really referred to by their names, noting the callsign makes some sense. -- [[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 21:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)		:::No one is suggesting to use it several times for one character. It's just about the introduction, and what you say is more or less what's done at the moment. But I think doing it in every introduction already creates formulaic sentences, because it's generally done either at the beginning of a paragraph and/or a sentence. IMO this isn't something that should be standardized so clearly that it needs to be done every time, but only when really needed, so that it doesn't impede the prose. For example it's superfluous when a character hardly plays a role in the text, or if subsequent references only use the real name anyways. At least with main characters. As said, when talking about people like Racetrack or Hot Dog, who are really referred to by their names, noting the callsign makes some sense. -- [[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 21:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Serenity: /* Name and Callsign Standardization */

2008-05-23T21:30:16Z

Name and Callsign Standardization

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:30, 23 May 2008
Line 173:		Line 173:
	:At the same time, I think we kinda agreed that callsigns are appropriate for piloty actions. So using Racetrack exclusively in the battle article would be appropriate (though she can be introduced with callsign + name), whereas, in a scene in Joe's bar for example, her real name should be used instead. -- [[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 20:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)		:At the same time, I think we kinda agreed that callsigns are appropriate for piloty actions. So using Racetrack exclusively in the battle article would be appropriate (though she can be introduced with callsign + name), whereas, in a scene in Joe's bar for example, her real name should be used instead. -- [[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 20:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
	::The pilot vs. other stuff convention is a long-standing one that's followed pretty closely. However, I should reiterate that even ''if'' we decide to introduce people as Kara "Starbuck" Thrace, we should only call them that ''once'' and use their callsign or surname (whichever is appropriate) from there on, just like we do when introducing normal people (i.e. "William Adama ... Adama ... Adama"). --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 21:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)		::The pilot vs. other stuff convention is a long-standing one that's followed pretty closely. However, I should reiterate that even ''if'' we decide to introduce people as Kara "Starbuck" Thrace, we should only call them that ''once'' and use their callsign or surname (whichever is appropriate) from there on, just like we do when introducing normal people (i.e. "William Adama ... Adama ... Adama"). --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 21:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::No one is suggesting to use it several times for one character. It's just about the introduction, and what you say is more or less what's done at the moment. But I think doing it in every introduction already creates formulaic sentences, because it's generally done either at the beginning of a paragraph and/or a sentence. IMO this isn't something that should be standardized so clearly that it needs to be done every time, but only when really needed, so that it doesn't impede the prose. For example it's superfluous when a character hardly plays a role in the text, or if subsequent references only use the real name anyways. -- [[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 21:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)		:::No one is suggesting to use it several times for one character. It's just about the introduction, and what you say is more or less what's done at the moment. But I think doing it in every introduction already creates formulaic sentences, because it's generally done either at the beginning of a paragraph and/or a sentence. IMO this isn't something that should be standardized so clearly that it needs to be done every time, but only when really needed, so that it doesn't impede the prose. For example it's superfluous when a character hardly plays a role in the text, or if subsequent references only use the real name anyways. At least with main characters. As said, when talking about people like Racetrack or Hot Dog, which are really referred to by their names, noting the callsign makes some sense. -- [[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 21:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Serenity: /* Name and Callsign Standardization */

2008-05-23T21:22:35Z

Name and Callsign Standardization

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:22, 23 May 2008
Line 173:		Line 173:
	:At the same time, I think we kinda agreed that callsigns are appropriate for piloty actions. So using Racetrack exclusively in the battle article would be appropriate (though she can be introduced with callsign + name), whereas, in a scene in Joe's bar for example, her real name should be used instead. -- [[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 20:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)		:At the same time, I think we kinda agreed that callsigns are appropriate for piloty actions. So using Racetrack exclusively in the battle article would be appropriate (though she can be introduced with callsign + name), whereas, in a scene in Joe's bar for example, her real name should be used instead. -- [[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 20:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
	::The pilot vs. other stuff convention is a long-standing one that's followed pretty closely. However, I should reiterate that even ''if'' we decide to introduce people as Kara "Starbuck" Thrace, we should only call them that ''once'' and use their callsign or surname (whichever is appropriate) from there on, just like we do when introducing normal people (i.e. "William Adama ... Adama ... Adama"). --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 21:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)		::The pilot vs. other stuff convention is a long-standing one that's followed pretty closely. However, I should reiterate that even ''if'' we decide to introduce people as Kara "Starbuck" Thrace, we should only call them that ''once'' and use their callsign or surname (whichever is appropriate) from there on, just like we do when introducing normal people (i.e. "William Adama ... Adama ... Adama"). --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 21:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
			:::No one is suggesting to use it several times for one character. It's just about the introduction, and what you say is more or less what's done at the moment. But I think doing it in every introduction already creates formulaic sentences, because it's generally done either at the beginning of a paragraph and/or a sentence. IMO this isn't something that should be standardized so clearly that it needs to be done every time, but only when really needed, so that it doesn't impede the prose. For example it's superfluous when a character hardly plays a role in the text, or if subsequent references only use the real name anyways. -- [[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 21:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Catrope: /* Name and Callsign Standardization */ reply

2008-05-23T21:01:22Z

Name and Callsign Standardization: reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:01, 23 May 2008
Line 172:		Line 172:
	:I can see the point with lesser known characters, for example Racetrack who is generally referred to more by her callsign than her name. That's one reason why I left that in the recent edit. I just think, rather than making it an ironclad standard, that some case-by-case judgment should be used about when to use names only and when to add the callsign. With the [[Battle of Kobol (RDM)]] article, I felt that it's not necessary to do it for Apollo and Starbuck, since they barely play a role in that section. Apollo is only mentioned as her wingman, and only plays a role during the boarding later, and Thrace only steals the Raider. The section is really about Crashdown, Boomer and Racetrack, so it's better to introduce them fully, since their names are used more often and in both variations.		:I can see the point with lesser known characters, for example Racetrack who is generally referred to more by her callsign than her name. That's one reason why I left that in the recent edit. I just think, rather than making it an ironclad standard, that some case-by-case judgment should be used about when to use names only and when to add the callsign. With the [[Battle of Kobol (RDM)]] article, I felt that it's not necessary to do it for Apollo and Starbuck, since they barely play a role in that section. Apollo is only mentioned as her wingman, and only plays a role during the boarding later, and Thrace only steals the Raider. The section is really about Crashdown, Boomer and Racetrack, so it's better to introduce them fully, since their names are used more often and in both variations.
	:At the same time, I think we kinda agreed that callsigns are appropriate for piloty actions. So using Racetrack exclusively in the battle article would be appropriate (though she can be introduced with callsign + name), whereas, in a scene in Joe's bar for example, her real name should be used instead. -- [[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 20:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)		:At the same time, I think we kinda agreed that callsigns are appropriate for piloty actions. So using Racetrack exclusively in the battle article would be appropriate (though she can be introduced with callsign + name), whereas, in a scene in Joe's bar for example, her real name should be used instead. -- [[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 20:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
			::The pilot vs. other stuff convention is a long-standing one that's followed pretty closely. However, I should reiterate that even ''if'' we decide to introduce people as Kara "Starbuck" Thrace, we should only call them that ''once'' and use their callsign or surname (whichever is appropriate) from there on, just like we do when introducing normal people (i.e. "William Adama ... Adama ... Adama"). --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 21:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:31, 23 May 2008
Line 173:		Line 173:
	:At the same time, I think we kinda agreed that callsigns are appropriate for piloty actions. So using Racetrack exclusively in the battle article would be appropriate (though she can be introduced with callsign + name), whereas, in a scene in Joe's bar for example, her real name should be used instead. -- [[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 20:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)		:At the same time, I think we kinda agreed that callsigns are appropriate for piloty actions. So using Racetrack exclusively in the battle article would be appropriate (though she can be introduced with callsign + name), whereas, in a scene in Joe's bar for example, her real name should be used instead. -- [[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 20:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
	::The pilot vs. other stuff convention is a long-standing one that's followed pretty closely. However, I should reiterate that even ''if'' we decide to introduce people as Kara "Starbuck" Thrace, we should only call them that ''once'' and use their callsign or surname (whichever is appropriate) from there on, just like we do when introducing normal people (i.e. "William Adama ... Adama ... Adama"). --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 21:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)		::The pilot vs. other stuff convention is a long-standing one that's followed pretty closely. However, I should reiterate that even ''if'' we decide to introduce people as Kara "Starbuck" Thrace, we should only call them that ''once'' and use their callsign or surname (whichever is appropriate) from there on, just like we do when introducing normal people (i.e. "William Adama ... Adama ... Adama"). --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 21:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::No one is suggesting to use it several times for one character. It's just about the introduction, and what you say is more or less what's done at the moment. But I think doing it in every introduction already creates formulaic sentences, because it's generally done either at the beginning of a paragraph and/or a sentence. IMO this isn't something that should be standardized so clearly that it needs to be done every time, but only when really needed, so that it doesn't impede the prose. For example it's superfluous when a character hardly plays a role in the text, or if subsequent references only use the real name anyways. At least with main characters. As said, when talking about people like Racetrack or Hot Dog, ~~which~~ are really referred to by their names, noting the callsign makes some sense. -- [[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 21:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)		:::No one is suggesting to use it several times for one character. It's just about the introduction, and what you say is more or less what's done at the moment. But I think doing it in every introduction already creates formulaic sentences, because it's generally done either at the beginning of a paragraph and/or a sentence. IMO this isn't something that should be standardized so clearly that it needs to be done every time, but only when really needed, so that it doesn't impede the prose. For example it's superfluous when a character hardly plays a role in the text, or if subsequent references only use the real name anyways. At least with main characters. As said, when talking about people like Racetrack or Hot Dog, who are really referred to by their names, noting the callsign makes some sense. -- [[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 21:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:30, 23 May 2008
Line 173:		Line 173:
	:At the same time, I think we kinda agreed that callsigns are appropriate for piloty actions. So using Racetrack exclusively in the battle article would be appropriate (though she can be introduced with callsign + name), whereas, in a scene in Joe's bar for example, her real name should be used instead. -- [[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 20:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)		:At the same time, I think we kinda agreed that callsigns are appropriate for piloty actions. So using Racetrack exclusively in the battle article would be appropriate (though she can be introduced with callsign + name), whereas, in a scene in Joe's bar for example, her real name should be used instead. -- [[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 20:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
	::The pilot vs. other stuff convention is a long-standing one that's followed pretty closely. However, I should reiterate that even ''if'' we decide to introduce people as Kara "Starbuck" Thrace, we should only call them that ''once'' and use their callsign or surname (whichever is appropriate) from there on, just like we do when introducing normal people (i.e. "William Adama ... Adama ... Adama"). --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 21:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)		::The pilot vs. other stuff convention is a long-standing one that's followed pretty closely. However, I should reiterate that even ''if'' we decide to introduce people as Kara "Starbuck" Thrace, we should only call them that ''once'' and use their callsign or surname (whichever is appropriate) from there on, just like we do when introducing normal people (i.e. "William Adama ... Adama ... Adama"). --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 21:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::No one is suggesting to use it several times for one character. It's just about the introduction, and what you say is more or less what's done at the moment. But I think doing it in every introduction already creates formulaic sentences, because it's generally done either at the beginning of a paragraph and/or a sentence. IMO this isn't something that should be standardized so clearly that it needs to be done every time, but only when really needed, so that it doesn't impede the prose. For example it's superfluous when a character hardly plays a role in the text, or if subsequent references only use the real name anyways. -- [[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 21:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)		:::No one is suggesting to use it several times for one character. It's just about the introduction, and what you say is more or less what's done at the moment. But I think doing it in every introduction already creates formulaic sentences, because it's generally done either at the beginning of a paragraph and/or a sentence. IMO this isn't something that should be standardized so clearly that it needs to be done every time, but only when really needed, so that it doesn't impede the prose. For example it's superfluous when a character hardly plays a role in the text, or if subsequent references only use the real name anyways. At least with main characters. As said, when talking about people like Racetrack or Hot Dog, which are really referred to by their names, noting the callsign makes some sense. -- [[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 21:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:22, 23 May 2008
Line 173:		Line 173:
	:At the same time, I think we kinda agreed that callsigns are appropriate for piloty actions. So using Racetrack exclusively in the battle article would be appropriate (though she can be introduced with callsign + name), whereas, in a scene in Joe's bar for example, her real name should be used instead. -- [[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 20:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)		:At the same time, I think we kinda agreed that callsigns are appropriate for piloty actions. So using Racetrack exclusively in the battle article would be appropriate (though she can be introduced with callsign + name), whereas, in a scene in Joe's bar for example, her real name should be used instead. -- [[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 20:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
	::The pilot vs. other stuff convention is a long-standing one that's followed pretty closely. However, I should reiterate that even ''if'' we decide to introduce people as Kara "Starbuck" Thrace, we should only call them that ''once'' and use their callsign or surname (whichever is appropriate) from there on, just like we do when introducing normal people (i.e. "William Adama ... Adama ... Adama"). --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 21:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)		::The pilot vs. other stuff convention is a long-standing one that's followed pretty closely. However, I should reiterate that even ''if'' we decide to introduce people as Kara "Starbuck" Thrace, we should only call them that ''once'' and use their callsign or surname (whichever is appropriate) from there on, just like we do when introducing normal people (i.e. "William Adama ... Adama ... Adama"). --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 21:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
			:::No one is suggesting to use it several times for one character. It's just about the introduction, and what you say is more or less what's done at the moment. But I think doing it in every introduction already creates formulaic sentences, because it's generally done either at the beginning of a paragraph and/or a sentence. IMO this isn't something that should be standardized so clearly that it needs to be done every time, but only when really needed, so that it doesn't impede the prose. For example it's superfluous when a character hardly plays a role in the text, or if subsequent references only use the real name anyways. -- [[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 21:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)