Editing Battlestar Wiki talk:Think Tank/Episode Standardization
Discussion page of Battlestar Wiki:Think Tank/Episode Standardization
More actions
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Well I agree in general but could you point out specifically what you'd like to standardize? For example, I mean like pick one episode article in particular and say what about it should be standardized but more importantly ''how''. | |||
I myself was going to propose something like "standardize the Analysis sections", but I think that would fall under this: '''Our Analysis sections are in great need of standardization, but I was reluctant to change them myself for fear of ruffling feathers'''.----------------->Case in point, the Analysis for "[[Colonial Day]]" is...incredibly POV: this isn't a blog where we're writing an "episode review" in the Analysis section, Analysis is more for theorizing and pointing out trends. I mean yes like in Black Market we can point out "this episode has a lot of problems", but I think I tried to keep it to a minumum in there. ----->With everyone I've ever seen Colonial Day with at DVD parties and such, or on BSG messageboards, Colonial Day ranks as one of the favorites of Season 1. By the late season they really got good at scripting for the characters. But the analysis section of Colonial Day says right on the front line flatly that "This is the most poorly-conceived and executed episode in BSG's first season". It's POV for *me* to say I like it, but I still think that objectively, yes it had a good script I've already marked it for cleanup. | I myself was going to propose something like "standardize the Analysis sections", but I think that would fall under this: '''Our Analysis sections are in great need of standardization, but I was reluctant to change them myself for fear of ruffling feathers'''.----------------->Case in point, the Analysis for "[[Colonial Day]]" is...incredibly POV: this isn't a blog where we're writing an "episode review" in the Analysis section, Analysis is more for theorizing and pointing out trends. I mean yes like in Black Market we can point out "this episode has a lot of problems", but I think I tried to keep it to a minumum in there. ----->With everyone I've ever seen Colonial Day with at DVD parties and such, or on BSG messageboards, Colonial Day ranks as one of the favorites of Season 1. By the late season they really got good at scripting for the characters. But the analysis section of Colonial Day says right on the front line flatly that "This is the most poorly-conceived and executed episode in BSG's first season". It's POV for *me* to say I like it, but I still think that objectively, yes it had a good script I've already marked it for cleanup. | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
:What really started me on this is that the first season episodes have the summary from Sci-Fi channel (which should I think should be in the episode article until it is aired). Those kind of things. Also, going back through "Questions" is probably a good idea. At least make the articles all "look" the same. However, you are correct about the "Analysis" section. I think that it is a fine line between "Analysis" and "Speculation" (which I personally unintentionally drift toward). We can add "Analysis" specifically to this project if you wish or it can be done as a followup. Do you have a particular article that you think the "Analysis" is a good example of "how-to"? I just think that if we have an "example" article, it would save on some discussions on individual articles. I made the proposal "thin" so others can add ideas to it. This is not "my" project, but something I am proposing from "us" to do. Also, I too have been thinking about how to rewrite the [[Colonial Day]] analysis which is clearly biased. --[[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] 13:18, 9 July 2006 (CDT) | :What really started me on this is that the first season episodes have the summary from Sci-Fi channel (which should I think should be in the episode article until it is aired). Those kind of things. Also, going back through "Questions" is probably a good idea. At least make the articles all "look" the same. However, you are correct about the "Analysis" section. I think that it is a fine line between "Analysis" and "Speculation" (which I personally unintentionally drift toward). We can add "Analysis" specifically to this project if you wish or it can be done as a followup. Do you have a particular article that you think the "Analysis" is a good example of "how-to"? I just think that if we have an "example" article, it would save on some discussions on individual articles. I made the proposal "thin" so others can add ideas to it. This is not "my" project, but something I am proposing from "us" to do. Also, I too have been thinking about how to rewrite the [[Colonial Day]] analysis which is clearly biased. --[[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] 13:18, 9 July 2006 (CDT) | ||
Is the Think Tank really the best place for this? [[BW:SC]] is where we usually deal with standardization issues. --[[User: | Is the Think Tank really the best place for this? [[BW:SC]] is where we usually deal with standardization issues. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 14:33, 9 July 2006 (CDT) | ||
::Yes, it's not so much a new policy as enforcing old ones more strictly. I'll bring up this discussion there. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]])</sup> 17:16, 9 July 2006 (CDT) | ::Yes, it's not so much a new policy as enforcing old ones more strictly. I'll bring up this discussion there. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]])</sup> 17:16, 9 July 2006 (CDT) | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
:::I think this wasn't proposing the standards (which are pretty much BW:SC) but proposing a project page/organized effort to methodically go through the existing ones and enforce them. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 12:24, 10 July 2006 (CDT) | :::I think this wasn't proposing the standards (which are pretty much BW:SC) but proposing a project page/organized effort to methodically go through the existing ones and enforce them. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 12:24, 10 July 2006 (CDT) | ||
::::Oh, I see. I have no objection to that. --[[User: | ::::Oh, I see. I have no objection to that. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 12:45, 10 July 2006 (CDT) | ||
== Massive Edit == | == Massive Edit == | ||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
::::: 26 hours is almost up anyways...--[[User:Shane|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]])</sup> 11:30, 18 July 2006 (CDT) | ::::: 26 hours is almost up anyways...--[[User:Shane|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]])</sup> 11:30, 18 July 2006 (CDT) | ||
::::: 26 hours has passed. starting voting process. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]])</sup> 14:09, 18 July 2006 (CDT) | ::::: 26 hours has passed. starting voting process. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]])</sup> 14:09, 18 July 2006 (CDT) | ||
== Vote == | == Vote == | ||
| Line 49: | Line 47: | ||
# [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin Jr.]] - {{support}} Let's create this. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 15:36, 18 July 2006 (CDT) | # [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin Jr.]] - {{support}} Let's create this. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 15:36, 18 July 2006 (CDT) | ||
# [[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] - | # [[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] - | ||
# [[User:Day|Day]] - | # [[User:Day|Day]] - | ||
# [[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] - | # [[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] - | ||
# [[User: | # [[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] - | ||
# [[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] - {{Support}} I'm game, even for "1980." If ''Star Trek'' can make sense of itself, so can we. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 16:44, 18 July 2006 (CDT) | # [[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] - {{Support}} I'm game, even for "1980." If ''Star Trek'' can make sense of itself, so can we. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 16:44, 18 July 2006 (CDT) | ||
# [[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] - {{Support}} One episode guide to rule them all... (maybe eventually even the 1980 ones). --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 14:34, 18 July 2006 (CDT) | # [[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] - {{Support}} One episode guide to rule them all... (maybe eventually even the 1980 ones). --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 14:34, 18 July 2006 (CDT) | ||
| Line 59: | Line 57: | ||
# {{Support}} --[[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] 18:13, 18 July 2006 (CDT) | # {{Support}} --[[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] 18:13, 18 July 2006 (CDT) | ||
# {{Support}} --[[User:Shane|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]])</sup> 18:16, 18 July 2006 (CDT) | # {{Support}} --[[User:Shane|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]])</sup> 18:16, 18 July 2006 (CDT) | ||