Battlestar Wiki talk:Think Tank/Episode pages are not forums

100% Agree. My aurgment lies here: http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Battlestar_Wiki_talk:Episode_Standardization#Questions.2FAnalysis_Sections --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 21:47, 25 October 2006 (CDT)

This I have no problem with. If anything, the "back and forth" commentary needs to be placed on the discussion pages, so that questions can be rephrased, removed, or modified accordingly. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 06:41, 26 October 2006 (CDT)

Well we dont have a forum, where else would you suggest this kind of stuff take place? --Mercifull ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 08:30, 26 October 2006 (CDT)

Joe is suggesting it take place on the discussion/talk pages, rather than in the article space. The argumentative retorts tend to break the "encyclopedic" feel of the articles. Though I understand why you'd be interested in getting some kind of a forum set up in those domain names... --Steelviper 09:14, 26 October 2006 (CDT)

It would be better if we chose to require each and every question to be written in single bullets instead of the nested questions, which complicate editing matters. We could use the talk page to transfer obvious or answered questions from the article, but I wouldn't care to have a discussion there, either. We already have the Standards and Conventions policy of how to enter questions, so a new policy is merely redundant. I think we just need to create a practice with editing that enforces the current rule, and perhaps be more strict about entering questions. Alternatively, we could create a separate subarticle for the episode article (for example, [[Exodus, Part II/Preliminary questions]]) that allow free-flowing questions to be entered by veteran or new contributors with less knowledge of the show. Questions placed there that remain unanswerable and germane (that is, avoiding overspeculation and fanwanking) can be added to the larger page, say, 1 week after the episode airs. In a sense, we moderate the questions outside of the article and they stay in wikispace.--Spencerian 09:12, 26 October 2006 (CDT)

I agree. In addition to the back-and-forthing, some people also write very opionated, almost saying things like "In my opinion" or "I think". Some also blow trivial things out of proportion. IMO that's not very interesting or desirable. It can be mentioned of course, but shouldn't deserve several bullet points. But where to draw a line is very subjective --Serenity 11:27, 26 October 2006 (CDT)

... which leads me to believe that we should remove the "replies" to said questions from the Questions area entirely, unless they are answered in a later episode. Also, any analysis due to the questions should be moved down to the "Analysis" section. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 20:07, 26 October 2006 (CDT)

That sounds good (apologies, Joe...I think I just repeated back what you said initially in my last comment). Should we experiment with this tonight with Collaborators? --Spencerian 07:51, 27 October 2006 (CDT)

Absolutely. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 07:58, 27 October 2006 (CDT)

Maybe this doesn't belong here, but an example from "Exodus, Part II" is the question of how Galactica's Vipers managed to land on the ship so quickly, when flying from the planet to space would take several minutes. It's beyond me how anyone can assume that the episode took place in real time. It's blindingly obvious that we didn't see everything that happend and that the whole thing took hours. Yet there are 1 or 2 huge paragraphs with pointless explinations of a trivial issue --Serenity 09:42, 27 October 2006 (CDT)

Thanks for bringing this up. Definitely the right place to do it. I am strongly for removing the explainations entirely. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 10:07, 27 October 2006 (CDT)

These are the same reasons that I moved the "deus ex machina" discussions from Epiphanies and Flight of the Phoenix when I went through the episodes. Episode articles should mainly "tell the story" about what is shown onscreen. Questions should have a possible, maybe probable, concrete answer in future episode. --FrankieG 10:54, 27 October 2006 (CDT)

I think we need to get this going. Otherwise we will be putting commented out HTML to remind people where things go. Better to do it now early in the season while we can still "remember" the episodes. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 08:42, 28 October 2006 (CDT)

Agreed. Let's get the ball rolling and put this to a vote. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 08:43, 28 October 2006 (CDT)

Voting Tally

Any contributor of Battlestar Wiki may vote on this issue. To vote:

1. Place a number symbol and a tag representing your vote: {{support}}, {{oppose}}, or {{neutral}}.
2. Enter a brief comment on your vote and be sure to sign your vote with four tildes (or use the signature button, which is the next to last button on the editing toolbar, below the article title).

Votes

1. Support. Keeping articles encylopedic and lean is what a wiki is all about. --Spencerian 08:57, 28 October 2006 (CDT)
2. Support. Keep it lean and mean. --FrankieG 11:04, 28 October 2006 (CDT)
3. Support. Somtimes less is more --Serenity 11:31, 28 October 2006 (CDT)
4. Support. --April Arcus 12:44, 28 October 2006 (CDT)
5. Support The word "chastising" strikes me as a bit too strong, but the Questions sections do need to be policed. --CalculatinAvatar^(C-T) 13:41, 28 October 2006 (CDT)
6. Support Ditto FrankieG. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 13:59, 28 October 2006 (CDT)
7. Support --Talos 14:02, 28 October 2006 (CDT)
8. Support Obviously. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 19:00, 28 October 2006 (CDT)

Re-imagined Series definition: visual indicator used in a battlestar's Instrument Landing System during a hands-on approach ^{(TRS: "Miniseries", "Act of Contrition", "Final Cut", "Black Market")}