| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 2: |
Line 2: |
|
| |
|
| I don't believe the champion of the item understands the use of TT items. This process isn't for research of speculation, sourced or unsourced. It could bear the review of existing or creation of new articles relating to the question, but my cursory look appears to believe this is a question that cannot be answered without more aired information. Another TT proposal by the same contributor appears to be similar in intent. I will be dropping a note on the user's page with more information but won't do anything to this or the second TT items until we have some more thoughts and what to do. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 02:33, 22 August 2007 (CDT) | | I don't believe the champion of the item understands the use of TT items. This process isn't for research of speculation, sourced or unsourced. It could bear the review of existing or creation of new articles relating to the question, but my cursory look appears to believe this is a question that cannot be answered without more aired information. Another TT proposal by the same contributor appears to be similar in intent. I will be dropping a note on the user's page with more information but won't do anything to this or the second TT items until we have some more thoughts and what to do. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 02:33, 22 August 2007 (CDT) |
| : Thanks. :-) Anyway, as you said, I don't think we have much information on this either way. There seems to be the assumption that Cylon women bear children exclusively, while human women seeded by Male Cylons will bear male children, which I find to be a major assumption since we have only two hybrids and not enough data to prove or disprove this theory.
| |
| : As for the use of the Think Tank to propose these things... My thoughts on the subject, as it stands right now, is that this kind of thing is permissible here. It may not be what we're used to, since we've used this more for "behind-the-scenes" issues, but what the user's suggesting is, at some level, a change in certain things about the wiki, though they are minor in comparison to what's been brought to the Think Tank before. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New'']</sup> 02:42, 22 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
|
| |
| :It's not completely out of line here, but these questions are very speculative in any case, even when asking official sources. Knowing past answers in OC, they aren't as exhaustive as this will probably need. Brad points out some small things here and there, some answers can be long, but he rarely spills all the beans. Especially not when it comes to the identities of Cylons.
| |
| :But since the "how" is "asking someone from the show", we don't need a TT proposal for this. It can be asked on OC, and when/if an answer comes - which can take a while - it can be discussed on an article's talk page. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 02:54, 22 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| ::I agree. I've always seen the TT as a bureaucratic machine for discussing major changes. This can be asked on [[BW:OC]] and discussed on [[Talk:Hera Agathon]] or [[Talk:Nicholas Tyrol]]. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]])</sup> 04:30, 22 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| :::It could have been a 50/50 guess. We're sure Sharon didn't just get lucky? My instinct is something akin to the "sybiotic relationship", but I don't think we need to change anything. As far as using the Think Tank for discussing medium-sized issues (i.e. not major policy, but spanning more than one article) I'm all for it, or the creation of some dedicated (and appropriately policed) "Village Pump". Else these discussions get hidden away in some corner of the wiki where only those poeple who check recent changes frequently will end up noticing. [[User:OTW|OTW]] 18:20, 22 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
