Battlestar Wiki talk:State of the Wiki II - Revision history

JubalHarshaw: /* Silly */ - not silly, but it is an essay

2007-05-12T18:30:47Z

Silly: - not silly, but it is an essay

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:30, 12 May 2007
Line 106:		Line 106:
	::It's still some of the worst stuff I tried to write here (intentions aside). I didn't mark it as silly, which I should consider as an insult. :) --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 15:04, 21 February 2007 (CST)		::It's still some of the worst stuff I tried to write here (intentions aside). I didn't mark it as silly, which I should consider as an insult. :) --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 15:04, 21 February 2007 (CST)
	:::I removed the silly template. We'll have to find some other way to categorize it. Unless, Spencerian, you'd be interested in superseding it part III. Correct whatever defects/flaws you found in your previous analysis. Myself, I've begun to question some of the thoroughness of MA while catching up with Voyager via syndication, as there are episode guides for Voyager (and DS9) that aren't complete. That just blew my mind. That being said, we really shouldn't be focusing our energy on praising (or deriding) other sites, but rather in identifying our own weaknesses and strengths so we can better exploit the latter and improve the former. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 15:28, 21 February 2007 (CST)		:::I removed the silly template. We'll have to find some other way to categorize it. Unless, Spencerian, you'd be interested in superseding it part III. Correct whatever defects/flaws you found in your previous analysis. Myself, I've begun to question some of the thoroughness of MA while catching up with Voyager via syndication, as there are episode guides for Voyager (and DS9) that aren't complete. That just blew my mind. That being said, we really shouldn't be focusing our energy on praising (or deriding) other sites, but rather in identifying our own weaknesses and strengths so we can better exploit the latter and improve the former. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 15:28, 21 February 2007 (CST)
			::::Agreed, Steelviper. Well-wrought comparisons though, Spencerian. "State of the Wiki" isn't really the best name for this. Call it "Wiki Comparisons" or something like that, maybe? I'm also going to add an essay tag (as that's basically what this is) [[User:JubalHarshaw\|JubalHarshaw]] 13:30, 12 May 2007 (CDT)

Steelviper: Talk:State of the Wiki II moved to Battlestar Wiki talk:State of the Wiki II: moved out of main namespace into BW namespace

2007-05-11T17:47:56Z

Talk:State of the Wiki II moved to Battlestar Wiki talk:State of the Wiki II: moved out of main namespace into BW namespace

← Older revision	Revision as of 17:47, 11 May 2007
(No difference)

Steelviper: /* Silly */ removed template

2007-02-21T21:28:24Z

Silly: removed template

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:28, 21 February 2007
Line 105:		Line 105:
	:I agree, not really silly. --[[User:Mercifull\|Mercifull]] <sup>([[User talk:Mercifull\|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull\|Contribs]])</sup> 13:52, 21 February 2007 (CST)		:I agree, not really silly. --[[User:Mercifull\|Mercifull]] <sup>([[User talk:Mercifull\|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull\|Contribs]])</sup> 13:52, 21 February 2007 (CST)
	::It's still some of the worst stuff I tried to write here (intentions aside). I didn't mark it as silly, which I should consider as an insult. :) --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 15:04, 21 February 2007 (CST)		::It's still some of the worst stuff I tried to write here (intentions aside). I didn't mark it as silly, which I should consider as an insult. :) --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 15:04, 21 February 2007 (CST)
			:::I removed the silly template. We'll have to find some other way to categorize it. Unless, Spencerian, you'd be interested in superseding it part III. Correct whatever defects/flaws you found in your previous analysis. Myself, I've begun to question some of the thoroughness of MA while catching up with Voyager via syndication, as there are episode guides for Voyager (and DS9) that aren't complete. That just blew my mind. That being said, we really shouldn't be focusing our energy on praising (or deriding) other sites, but rather in identifying our own weaknesses and strengths so we can better exploit the latter and improve the former. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 15:28, 21 February 2007 (CST)

Spencerian: /* Silly */

2007-02-21T21:04:42Z

Silly

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:04, 21 February 2007
Line 104:		Line 104:
	Is this page really silly? I wouldn't go so far as to call for its deletion (as it is relevant), but we ought to figure out how to categorize this so that it can be found (so that it can spark further discussion, ideas, changes, etc.) without calling it silly. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 13:48, 21 February 2007 (CST)		Is this page really silly? I wouldn't go so far as to call for its deletion (as it is relevant), but we ought to figure out how to categorize this so that it can be found (so that it can spark further discussion, ideas, changes, etc.) without calling it silly. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 13:48, 21 February 2007 (CST)
	:I agree, not really silly. --[[User:Mercifull\|Mercifull]] <sup>([[User talk:Mercifull\|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull\|Contribs]])</sup> 13:52, 21 February 2007 (CST)		:I agree, not really silly. --[[User:Mercifull\|Mercifull]] <sup>([[User talk:Mercifull\|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull\|Contribs]])</sup> 13:52, 21 February 2007 (CST)
			::It's still some of the worst stuff I tried to write here (intentions aside). I didn't mark it as silly, which I should consider as an insult. :) --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 15:04, 21 February 2007 (CST)

Mercifull: /* Silly */

2007-02-21T19:52:56Z

Silly

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:52, 21 February 2007
Line 103:		Line 103:
	== Silly ==		== Silly ==
	Is this page really silly? I wouldn't go so far as to call for its deletion (as it is relevant), but we ought to figure out how to categorize this so that it can be found (so that it can spark further discussion, ideas, changes, etc.) without calling it silly. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 13:48, 21 February 2007 (CST)		Is this page really silly? I wouldn't go so far as to call for its deletion (as it is relevant), but we ought to figure out how to categorize this so that it can be found (so that it can spark further discussion, ideas, changes, etc.) without calling it silly. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 13:48, 21 February 2007 (CST)
			:I agree, not really silly. --[[User:Mercifull\|Mercifull]] <sup>([[User talk:Mercifull\|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull\|Contribs]])</sup> 13:52, 21 February 2007 (CST)

Steelviper: Silly?

2007-02-21T19:48:30Z

Silly?

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:48, 21 February 2007
Line 100:		Line 100:

	Rest assured, the Analysis pages we have are of excellent quality and do not violate NPOV. Please go to the Talk page of Cylon agent speculation, linked above, if you would like to debate your views there. --[[User:The Merovingian\|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian\|E]])</sup> 23:40, 16 August 2006 (CDT)		Rest assured, the Analysis pages we have are of excellent quality and do not violate NPOV. Please go to the Talk page of Cylon agent speculation, linked above, if you would like to debate your views there. --[[User:The Merovingian\|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian\|E]])</sup> 23:40, 16 August 2006 (CDT)

			== Silly ==
			Is this page really silly? I wouldn't go so far as to call for its deletion (as it is relevant), but we ought to figure out how to categorize this so that it can be found (so that it can spark further discussion, ideas, changes, etc.) without calling it silly. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 13:48, 21 February 2007 (CST)

The Merovingian: /* Huh? */

2006-08-17T04:49:33Z

Huh?

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:49, 17 August 2006
Line 95:		Line 95:
	:::::::::The best way to recover that page, as far as I can tell, is to completely remove the qualifications and ranking. Instead, including reasoning for each entry (basically as it exists now). That would allow for all people to include their own POVs without the article supporting one over another. --[[User:Mateo\|Mateo]] 23:29, 16 August 2006 (CDT)		:::::::::The best way to recover that page, as far as I can tell, is to completely remove the qualifications and ranking. Instead, including reasoning for each entry (basically as it exists now). That would allow for all people to include their own POVs without the article supporting one over another. --[[User:Mateo\|Mateo]] 23:29, 16 August 2006 (CDT)

	As you haven't contributed much to BattlestarWiki and might not know how this goes down, go to "[[Talk:Cylon agent speculation]]" and "edit" in discussion you want to make with other contributors. I'll actually start this one off to help out as you seem confused. It's actually irrelevant that it just happens to be the "first" qualification we put in there; the order doesn't mean anything. ----->No, and I am adamant about this, it is not "all speculation"; '''they are all grounded in on-screen evidence''', ''Analyzed'' for comparison. You seem to be really concerned with the distinction between Analysis and speculation with regard to POV, but I assure you we've spent months weeding out rampant POV stuff, and the pages we have are actually quite respectable. By that logic we might as well remove our Timeline analysis...speculation?...or any other of our Analysis pages which are based on facts on screen that we then tried to figure out.		As you haven't contributed much to BattlestarWiki and might not know how this goes down, go to "[[Talk:Cylon agent speculation]]" and "edit" in discussion you want to make with other contributors; it's not a messageboard but it's how we talk about stuff. I'll actually start this one off to help out as you seem confused. It's actually irrelevant that it just happens to be the "first" qualification we put in there; the order doesn't mean anything. ----->No, and I am adamant about this, it is not "all speculation"; '''they are all grounded in on-screen evidence''', ''Analyzed'' for comparison. You seem to be really concerned with the distinction between Analysis and speculation with regard to POV, but I assure you we've spent months weeding out rampant POV stuff, and the pages we have are actually quite respectable. By that logic we might as well remove our Timeline analysis...speculation?...or any other of our Analysis pages which are based on facts on screen that we then tried to figure out.

	"Groupthink project" is a buzz word you are ~~throwing out at us~~. I am trying to be respectful of your position, but you've just demanded that ''assuredly'', the ~~only-way-for-our-wiki-to-survive is to completely destroy an article you never contributed to or debated on yourself~~. ~~Most of your contributions have been limited~~ to ~~debating whether "Caprica" is a prequel or a "spinoff", and this "State of~~ the ~~Wiki"~~ page ~~itself.~~ I ~~am not knocking you for only having a few contributions so far. I am questioning~~ the ~~etiquette of not contributing or even commenting on Talk pages that much~~ about ~~projects~~, ~~and then demanding that they are unacceptable and must be destroyed in a not-so-friendly tone~~.		"Groupthink project" is a buzz word you are using. I am trying to be respectful of your position, but you've just demanded that ''assuredly'', the pages are wrong and must be changed. If you disagree, please go to the Talk page and bring up stuff, but I must say this is honestly the first complaint about this we've ever had, as we set up our Analysis pretty well.

	Rest assured, the Analysis pages we have are of excellent quality and do not violate NPOV. Please go to the Talk page of Cylon agent speculation, linked above, if you would like to debate your views there. --[[User:The Merovingian\|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian\|E]])</sup> 23:40, 16 August 2006 (CDT)		Rest assured, the Analysis pages we have are of excellent quality and do not violate NPOV. Please go to the Talk page of Cylon agent speculation, linked above, if you would like to debate your views there. --[[User:The Merovingian\|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian\|E]])</sup> 23:40, 16 August 2006 (CDT)

The Merovingian: /* Huh? */

2006-08-17T04:41:43Z

Huh?

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:41, 17 August 2006
Line 99:		Line 99:
	"Groupthink project" is a buzz word you are throwing out at us. I am trying to be respectful of your position, but you've just demanded that ''assuredly'', the only-way-for-our-wiki-to-survive is to completely destroy an article you never contributed to or debated on yourself. Most of your contributions have been limited to debating whether "Caprica" is a prequel or a "spinoff", and this "State of the Wiki" page itself. I am not knocking you for only having a few contributions so far. I am questioning the etiquette of not contributing or even commenting on Talk pages that much about projects, and then demanding that they are unacceptable and must be destroyed in a not-so-friendly tone.		"Groupthink project" is a buzz word you are throwing out at us. I am trying to be respectful of your position, but you've just demanded that ''assuredly'', the only-way-for-our-wiki-to-survive is to completely destroy an article you never contributed to or debated on yourself. Most of your contributions have been limited to debating whether "Caprica" is a prequel or a "spinoff", and this "State of the Wiki" page itself. I am not knocking you for only having a few contributions so far. I am questioning the etiquette of not contributing or even commenting on Talk pages that much about projects, and then demanding that they are unacceptable and must be destroyed in a not-so-friendly tone.

	Rest assured, the Analysis pages we have are of excellent quality and do not violate NPOV. Please go to the Talk page of Cylon agent speculation, linked above, if you would like to debate your ~~viewers~~ there. --[[User:The Merovingian\|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian\|E]])</sup> 23:40, 16 August 2006 (CDT)		Rest assured, the Analysis pages we have are of excellent quality and do not violate NPOV. Please go to the Talk page of Cylon agent speculation, linked above, if you would like to debate your views there. --[[User:The Merovingian\|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian\|E]])</sup> 23:40, 16 August 2006 (CDT)

The Merovingian: /* Huh? */

2006-08-17T04:40:32Z

Huh?

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:40, 17 August 2006
Line 94:		Line 94:
	:::::::::A footnote? It's the '''first''' item on the list of qualifications! Bringing it up on the talk page won't help any. ''It's all speculation'' and POV. Unless RDM says on his blog that all cylons chew bubble gum, then that's nothing but POV. You said that these things were "debated" on the talk page (I wasn't aware that this was a message board where people debate their opinions on the show, I thought we dealt with facts. There are no facts as to who can be a cylon), but that only confirms my worry about this place becoming a groupthink project. You can't vote for POV inclusion. It ceases to be a wiki and becomes one side's opinion.		:::::::::A footnote? It's the '''first''' item on the list of qualifications! Bringing it up on the talk page won't help any. ''It's all speculation'' and POV. Unless RDM says on his blog that all cylons chew bubble gum, then that's nothing but POV. You said that these things were "debated" on the talk page (I wasn't aware that this was a message board where people debate their opinions on the show, I thought we dealt with facts. There are no facts as to who can be a cylon), but that only confirms my worry about this place becoming a groupthink project. You can't vote for POV inclusion. It ceases to be a wiki and becomes one side's opinion.
	:::::::::The best way to recover that page, as far as I can tell, is to completely remove the qualifications and ranking. Instead, including reasoning for each entry (basically as it exists now). That would allow for all people to include their own POVs without the article supporting one over another. --[[User:Mateo\|Mateo]] 23:29, 16 August 2006 (CDT)		:::::::::The best way to recover that page, as far as I can tell, is to completely remove the qualifications and ranking. Instead, including reasoning for each entry (basically as it exists now). That would allow for all people to include their own POVs without the article supporting one over another. --[[User:Mateo\|Mateo]] 23:29, 16 August 2006 (CDT)

			As you haven't contributed much to BattlestarWiki and might not know how this goes down, go to "[[Talk:Cylon agent speculation]]" and "edit" in discussion you want to make with other contributors. I'll actually start this one off to help out as you seem confused. It's actually irrelevant that it just happens to be the "first" qualification we put in there; the order doesn't mean anything. ----->No, and I am adamant about this, it is not "all speculation"; '''they are all grounded in on-screen evidence''', ''Analyzed'' for comparison. You seem to be really concerned with the distinction between Analysis and speculation with regard to POV, but I assure you we've spent months weeding out rampant POV stuff, and the pages we have are actually quite respectable. By that logic we might as well remove our Timeline analysis...speculation?...or any other of our Analysis pages which are based on facts on screen that we then tried to figure out.

			"Groupthink project" is a buzz word you are throwing out at us. I am trying to be respectful of your position, but you've just demanded that ''assuredly'', the only-way-for-our-wiki-to-survive is to completely destroy an article you never contributed to or debated on yourself. Most of your contributions have been limited to debating whether "Caprica" is a prequel or a "spinoff", and this "State of the Wiki" page itself. I am not knocking you for only having a few contributions so far. I am questioning the etiquette of not contributing or even commenting on Talk pages that much about projects, and then demanding that they are unacceptable and must be destroyed in a not-so-friendly tone.

			Rest assured, the Analysis pages we have are of excellent quality and do not violate NPOV. Please go to the Talk page of Cylon agent speculation, linked above, if you would like to debate your viewers there. --[[User:The Merovingian\|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian\|E]])</sup> 23:40, 16 August 2006 (CDT)

Mateo: /* Huh? */

2006-08-17T04:29:47Z

Huh?

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:29, 17 August 2006
Line 91:		Line 91:

	::::::::Rather than decrying this as some inherent flaw of BattlestarWiki, you could bring this up on the Cylon agent speculation Discussion page. I think there was actually debate on their as to what factors to or to not include in factoring that in. Rather than some sort of grievous flaw, if you wish you could bring that up on that page's Talk section if you want. Actually, the "regular association" thing was more of a footnote, as it really had no impact whatsoever on the standings of suspected Cylons (if it were to be removed, nothing else would actually be affected). --[[User:The Merovingian\|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian\|E]])</sup> 23:21, 16 August 2006 (CDT)		::::::::Rather than decrying this as some inherent flaw of BattlestarWiki, you could bring this up on the Cylon agent speculation Discussion page. I think there was actually debate on their as to what factors to or to not include in factoring that in. Rather than some sort of grievous flaw, if you wish you could bring that up on that page's Talk section if you want. Actually, the "regular association" thing was more of a footnote, as it really had no impact whatsoever on the standings of suspected Cylons (if it were to be removed, nothing else would actually be affected). --[[User:The Merovingian\|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian\|E]])</sup> 23:21, 16 August 2006 (CDT)

			:::::::::A footnote? It's the '''first''' item on the list of qualifications! Bringing it up on the talk page won't help any. ''It's all speculation'' and POV. Unless RDM says on his blog that all cylons chew bubble gum, then that's nothing but POV. You said that these things were "debated" on the talk page (I wasn't aware that this was a message board where people debate their opinions on the show, I thought we dealt with facts. There are no facts as to who can be a cylon), but that only confirms my worry about this place becoming a groupthink project. You can't vote for POV inclusion. It ceases to be a wiki and becomes one side's opinion.
			:::::::::The best way to recover that page, as far as I can tell, is to completely remove the qualifications and ranking. Instead, including reasoning for each entry (basically as it exists now). That would allow for all people to include their own POVs without the article supporting one over another. --[[User:Mateo\|Mateo]] 23:29, 16 August 2006 (CDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:30, 12 May 2007
Line 106:		Line 106:
	::It's still some of the worst stuff I tried to write here (intentions aside). I didn't mark it as silly, which I should consider as an insult. :) --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 15:04, 21 February 2007 (CST)		::It's still some of the worst stuff I tried to write here (intentions aside). I didn't mark it as silly, which I should consider as an insult. :) --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 15:04, 21 February 2007 (CST)
	:::I removed the silly template. We'll have to find some other way to categorize it. Unless, Spencerian, you'd be interested in superseding it part III. Correct whatever defects/flaws you found in your previous analysis. Myself, I've begun to question some of the thoroughness of MA while catching up with Voyager via syndication, as there are episode guides for Voyager (and DS9) that aren't complete. That just blew my mind. That being said, we really shouldn't be focusing our energy on praising (or deriding) other sites, but rather in identifying our own weaknesses and strengths so we can better exploit the latter and improve the former. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 15:28, 21 February 2007 (CST)		:::I removed the silly template. We'll have to find some other way to categorize it. Unless, Spencerian, you'd be interested in superseding it part III. Correct whatever defects/flaws you found in your previous analysis. Myself, I've begun to question some of the thoroughness of MA while catching up with Voyager via syndication, as there are episode guides for Voyager (and DS9) that aren't complete. That just blew my mind. That being said, we really shouldn't be focusing our energy on praising (or deriding) other sites, but rather in identifying our own weaknesses and strengths so we can better exploit the latter and improve the former. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 15:28, 21 February 2007 (CST)
			::::Agreed, Steelviper. Well-wrought comparisons though, Spencerian. "State of the Wiki" isn't really the best name for this. Call it "Wiki Comparisons" or something like that, maybe? I'm also going to add an essay tag (as that's basically what this is) [[User:JubalHarshaw\|JubalHarshaw]] 13:30, 12 May 2007 (CDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:28, 21 February 2007
Line 105:		Line 105:
	:I agree, not really silly. --[[User:Mercifull\|Mercifull]] <sup>([[User talk:Mercifull\|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull\|Contribs]])</sup> 13:52, 21 February 2007 (CST)		:I agree, not really silly. --[[User:Mercifull\|Mercifull]] <sup>([[User talk:Mercifull\|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull\|Contribs]])</sup> 13:52, 21 February 2007 (CST)
	::It's still some of the worst stuff I tried to write here (intentions aside). I didn't mark it as silly, which I should consider as an insult. :) --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 15:04, 21 February 2007 (CST)		::It's still some of the worst stuff I tried to write here (intentions aside). I didn't mark it as silly, which I should consider as an insult. :) --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 15:04, 21 February 2007 (CST)
			:::I removed the silly template. We'll have to find some other way to categorize it. Unless, Spencerian, you'd be interested in superseding it part III. Correct whatever defects/flaws you found in your previous analysis. Myself, I've begun to question some of the thoroughness of MA while catching up with Voyager via syndication, as there are episode guides for Voyager (and DS9) that aren't complete. That just blew my mind. That being said, we really shouldn't be focusing our energy on praising (or deriding) other sites, but rather in identifying our own weaknesses and strengths so we can better exploit the latter and improve the former. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 15:28, 21 February 2007 (CST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:04, 21 February 2007
Line 104:		Line 104:
	Is this page really silly? I wouldn't go so far as to call for its deletion (as it is relevant), but we ought to figure out how to categorize this so that it can be found (so that it can spark further discussion, ideas, changes, etc.) without calling it silly. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 13:48, 21 February 2007 (CST)		Is this page really silly? I wouldn't go so far as to call for its deletion (as it is relevant), but we ought to figure out how to categorize this so that it can be found (so that it can spark further discussion, ideas, changes, etc.) without calling it silly. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 13:48, 21 February 2007 (CST)
	:I agree, not really silly. --[[User:Mercifull\|Mercifull]] <sup>([[User talk:Mercifull\|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull\|Contribs]])</sup> 13:52, 21 February 2007 (CST)		:I agree, not really silly. --[[User:Mercifull\|Mercifull]] <sup>([[User talk:Mercifull\|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull\|Contribs]])</sup> 13:52, 21 February 2007 (CST)
			::It's still some of the worst stuff I tried to write here (intentions aside). I didn't mark it as silly, which I should consider as an insult. :) --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 15:04, 21 February 2007 (CST)