Editing Portal talk:Cylons
Discussion page of Portal:Cylons
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 27: | Line 27: | ||
:::The idea behind the portals would be not to replace an existing article, but to act as a central hub for activity and interest about specific topics. Example: [[Wikipedia:Portal:Physics]]. The person who started this Portal intended it to encompass ALL Cylons, but there's probably a lot more interest and activity related to the RDM Cylons. There was actually some pretty interesting stuff on earlier versions of this page if you dig back into the history, but there are currently technical difficulties that are keeping the portal boxes from being implemented as smoothly as the Wikipedia one (check out the code behind the wikipedia portal). --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 10:02, 17 April 2006 (CDT) | :::The idea behind the portals would be not to replace an existing article, but to act as a central hub for activity and interest about specific topics. Example: [[Wikipedia:Portal:Physics]]. The person who started this Portal intended it to encompass ALL Cylons, but there's probably a lot more interest and activity related to the RDM Cylons. There was actually some pretty interesting stuff on earlier versions of this page if you dig back into the history, but there are currently technical difficulties that are keeping the portal boxes from being implemented as smoothly as the Wikipedia one (check out the code behind the wikipedia portal). --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 10:02, 17 April 2006 (CDT) | ||
:::I'm not sure there really is one, particularly with as small an article space as we have compared to wikipedia. At any rate, having TOS, 1980 and RDM content mixed together doesn't strike me as very useful. --[[User: | :::I'm not sure there really is one, particularly with as small an article space as we have compared to wikipedia. At any rate, having TOS, 1980 and RDM content mixed together doesn't strike me as very useful. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 10:40, 17 April 2006 (CDT) | ||
== Current Human-Cylon Models Sub-Portal == | == Current Human-Cylon Models Sub-Portal == | ||
| Line 66: | Line 66: | ||
* "Number Two: This is three downloads for me." that is the quote from the Captioning for Exodus Part I. | * "Number Two: This is three downloads for me." that is the quote from the Captioning for Exodus Part I. | ||
:{{neutral}} (Are we allowed to use that outside of actual votes?) --[[User:BklynBruzer|BklynBruzer]] 20:00, 29 October 2006 (CST) | :{{neutral}} (Are we allowed to use that outside of actual votes?) --[[User:BklynBruzer|BklynBruzer]] 20:00, 29 October 2006 (CST) | ||
:{{oppose}} Captioning evidence is far to flimsy. Let's be patient. --[[User: | :{{oppose}} Captioning evidence is far to flimsy. Let's be patient. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 20:05, 29 October 2006 (CST) | ||
:{{oppose}} Ditto with what Peter said, and I'd like him to be Number Two, but can't let emotions guide the reporting.--[[User:Straycat0|Straycat0]] 20:08, 29 October 2006 (CST) | :{{oppose}} Ditto with what Peter said, and I'd like him to be Number Two, but can't let emotions guide the reporting.--[[User:Straycat0|Straycat0]] 20:08, 29 October 2006 (CST) | ||
:{{oppose}} Also. CC is designed to indetify which person is speaking. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]])</sup> 20:11, 29 October 2006 (CST) | :{{oppose}} Also. CC is designed to indetify which person is speaking. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]])</sup> 20:11, 29 October 2006 (CST) | ||
| Line 77: | Line 77: | ||
== "Human-Cylon Models of the Reimagined Series" Box Clean-Up? == | == "Human-Cylon Models of the Reimagined Series" Box Clean-Up? == | ||
Does anyone else think that the current layout for the Cylon Agent box is getting messy. It'd be a great template if we had more numbers, and it was fine with just Leoben, Cavil, and Simon, but now that we've gotten four more cylons, it just seems kind of silly to have all those blank heads and then the other seven down below, taking up so much room. I really like http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Cylon_Models#Known_Models. Changing the one here to that one I think would work well. Another thing we could do is just reduce the spacing between the Number Unknown cylons in this template. There's no reason they need three lines. Reduce the spacing, and you can get all four of the newest ones onto a single line. If, IF, we ever get the rest of the numbers, I think this template could be great, but with so many numbers unknown, it seems cluttered to me. [[User:Alpha5099|Alpha5099]] 13:19, 12 April 2007 (CDT) | Does anyone else think that the current layout for the Cylon Agent box is getting messy. It'd be a great template if we had more numbers, and it was fine with just Leoben, Cavil, and Simon, but now that we've gotten four more cylons, it just seems kind of silly to have all those blank heads and then the other seven down below, taking up so much room. I really like [[this template|http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Cylon_Models#Known_Models]]. Changing the one here to that one I think would work well. Another thing we could do is just reduce the spacing between the Number Unknown cylons in this template. There's no reason they need three lines. Reduce the spacing, and you can get all four of the newest ones onto a single line. If, IF, we ever get the rest of the numbers, I think this template could be great, but with so many numbers unknown, it seems cluttered to me. [[User:Alpha5099|Alpha5099]] 13:19, 12 April 2007 (CDT) | ||
:Right. The unknowns should be removed in the list of all 12, and all members of the Significant Seven be put there. Then the Final Five (Four) can be listed below. I don't share the obsession about their numbers anyways. There is no meaning behind them. Right now, it's just pointless duplication. I think it looks much better now. Comments? --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 13:42, 12 April 2007 (CDT) | :Right. The unknowns should be removed in the list of all 12, and all members of the Significant Seven be put there. Then the Final Five (Four) can be listed below. I don't share the obsession about their numbers anyways. There is no meaning behind them. Right now, it's just pointless duplication. I think it looks much better now. Comments? --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 13:42, 12 April 2007 (CDT) | ||
::It looks scattered and confusing to me right now. Can't you get it into a nice 4x3 matrix? --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]])</sup> 14:59, 12 April 2007 (CDT) | ::It looks scattered and confusing to me right now. Can't you get it into a nice 4x3 matrix? --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]])</sup> 14:59, 12 April 2007 (CDT) | ||