Talk:Basestar (TOS)/Archive 1 - Revision history

Joe Beaudoin Jr.: Text replacement - "Peter Farago" to "April Arcus"

2020-04-11T01:44:51Z

Text replacement - "Peter Farago" to "April Arcus"

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:44, 11 April 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==CCL vs. GFDL==		==CCL vs. GFDL==
	Is it really okay to relicense GFDL content under the license we're using here? --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 17:44, 18 October 2005 (EDT)		Is it really okay to relicense GFDL content under the license we're using here? --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 17:44, 18 October 2005 (EDT)

	:I stand corrected, but use is permissible under the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License GDFL] license instead, same parameters. [[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 17:48, 18 October 2005 (EDT)		:I stand corrected, but use is permissible under the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License GDFL] license instead, same parameters. [[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 17:48, 18 October 2005 (EDT)
Line 8:		Line 8:
	::#Portions of this article cannot be used elsewhere in the wiki for the same reason.		::#Portions of this article cannot be used elsewhere in the wiki for the same reason.
	::#Multiple licenses for different pages is very confusing, as we have just demonstrated.		::#Multiple licenses for different pages is very confusing, as we have just demonstrated.
	::The best (nay, only) thing to do is to blank this page immediately and rewrite it. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 17:52, 18 October 2005 (EDT)		::The best (nay, only) thing to do is to blank this page immediately and rewrite it. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 17:52, 18 October 2005 (EDT)
	::To clarify, it is not even possible to ask the authors of the Wikipedia article to dual-license their contributions, since the bulk of the article is by anonymous authors. We can, however, use it as a guide for rewriting this article, although we should bear in mind that it is not a [[Battlestar wiki:Citation Jihad\|reliable source]]. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 17:59, 18 October 2005 (EDT)		::To clarify, it is not even possible to ask the authors of the Wikipedia article to dual-license their contributions, since the bulk of the article is by anonymous authors. We can, however, use it as a guide for rewriting this article, although we should bear in mind that it is not a [[Battlestar wiki:Citation Jihad\|reliable source]]. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 17:59, 18 October 2005 (EDT)
	:::Ow, and ouch. The rewrite is not difficult. But sourcing for TOS stuff is more so, as you know, since this data has become electronically searchable long after TOS has left the air, and that material is likely conpromised with fan-fiction, games, and the like. For this, TOS episodes will have to remain the final source since it is unlikely to find official stats from a show long-gone, and I doubt Universal will be talking about anything other than RDM BSG. Will have to apply the KISS principle to this and many other TOS articles for this reason. [[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 18:11, 18 October 2005 (EDT)		:::Ow, and ouch. The rewrite is not difficult. But sourcing for TOS stuff is more so, as you know, since this data has become electronically searchable long after TOS has left the air, and that material is likely conpromised with fan-fiction, games, and the like. For this, TOS episodes will have to remain the final source since it is unlikely to find official stats from a show long-gone, and I doubt Universal will be talking about anything other than RDM BSG. Will have to apply the KISS principle to this and many other TOS articles for this reason. [[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 18:11, 18 October 2005 (EDT)

Spencerian: Well, poo

2005-10-18T22:11:12Z

Well, poo

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:11, 18 October 2005
Line 10:		Line 10:
	::The best (nay, only) thing to do is to blank this page immediately and rewrite it. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 17:52, 18 October 2005 (EDT)		::The best (nay, only) thing to do is to blank this page immediately and rewrite it. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 17:52, 18 October 2005 (EDT)
	::To clarify, it is not even possible to ask the authors of the Wikipedia article to dual-license their contributions, since the bulk of the article is by anonymous authors. We can, however, use it as a guide for rewriting this article, although we should bear in mind that it is not a [[Battlestar wiki:Citation Jihad\|reliable source]]. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 17:59, 18 October 2005 (EDT)		::To clarify, it is not even possible to ask the authors of the Wikipedia article to dual-license their contributions, since the bulk of the article is by anonymous authors. We can, however, use it as a guide for rewriting this article, although we should bear in mind that it is not a [[Battlestar wiki:Citation Jihad\|reliable source]]. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 17:59, 18 October 2005 (EDT)
			:::Ow, and ouch. The rewrite is not difficult. But sourcing for TOS stuff is more so, as you know, since this data has become electronically searchable long after TOS has left the air, and that material is likely conpromised with fan-fiction, games, and the like. For this, TOS episodes will have to remain the final source since it is unlikely to find official stats from a show long-gone, and I doubt Universal will be talking about anything other than RDM BSG. Will have to apply the KISS principle to this and many other TOS articles for this reason. [[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 18:11, 18 October 2005 (EDT)

April Arcus at 21:59, 18 October 2005

2005-10-18T21:59:07Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:59, 18 October 2005
Line 9:		Line 9:
	::#Multiple licenses for different pages is very confusing, as we have just demonstrated.		::#Multiple licenses for different pages is very confusing, as we have just demonstrated.
	::The best (nay, only) thing to do is to blank this page immediately and rewrite it. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 17:52, 18 October 2005 (EDT)		::The best (nay, only) thing to do is to blank this page immediately and rewrite it. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 17:52, 18 October 2005 (EDT)
			::To clarify, it is not even possible to ask the authors of the Wikipedia article to dual-license their contributions, since the bulk of the article is by anonymous authors. We can, however, use it as a guide for rewriting this article, although we should bear in mind that it is not a [[Battlestar wiki:Citation Jihad\|reliable source]]. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 17:59, 18 October 2005 (EDT)

April Arcus: /* CCL vs. GFDL */

2005-10-18T21:52:32Z

CCL vs. GFDL

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:52, 18 October 2005
Line 3:		Line 3:

	:I stand corrected, but use is permissible under the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License GDFL] license instead, same parameters. [[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 17:48, 18 October 2005 (EDT)		:I stand corrected, but use is permissible under the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License GDFL] license instead, same parameters. [[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 17:48, 18 October 2005 (EDT)

			::Yes, we could explicitly state that this page is licensed under the GFDL, whereas the rest of the Wiki is under CC-NC-SA, however this presents some major problems:
			::#CC-NC-SA work from the rest of the wiki cannot be incorporated into a GFDL article due to the NC clause.
			::#Portions of this article cannot be used elsewhere in the wiki for the same reason.
			::#Multiple licenses for different pages is very confusing, as we have just demonstrated.
			::The best (nay, only) thing to do is to blank this page immediately and rewrite it. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 17:52, 18 October 2005 (EDT)

Spencerian at 21:48, 18 October 2005

2005-10-18T21:48:14Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:48, 18 October 2005
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==CCL vs. GFDL==		==CCL vs. GFDL==
	Is it really okay to relicense GFDL content under the license we're using here? --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 17:44, 18 October 2005 (EDT)		Is it really okay to relicense GFDL content under the license we're using here? --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 17:44, 18 October 2005 (EDT)

			:I stand corrected, but use is permissible under the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License GDFL] license instead, same parameters. [[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 17:48, 18 October 2005 (EDT)

April Arcus at 21:44, 18 October 2005

2005-10-18T21:44:49Z

New page

==CCL vs. GFDL==
Is it really okay to relicense GFDL content under the license we're using here? --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:44, 18 October 2005 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:11, 18 October 2005
Line 10:		Line 10:
	::The best (nay, only) thing to do is to blank this page immediately and rewrite it. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 17:52, 18 October 2005 (EDT)		::The best (nay, only) thing to do is to blank this page immediately and rewrite it. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 17:52, 18 October 2005 (EDT)
	::To clarify, it is not even possible to ask the authors of the Wikipedia article to dual-license their contributions, since the bulk of the article is by anonymous authors. We can, however, use it as a guide for rewriting this article, although we should bear in mind that it is not a [[Battlestar wiki:Citation Jihad\|reliable source]]. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 17:59, 18 October 2005 (EDT)		::To clarify, it is not even possible to ask the authors of the Wikipedia article to dual-license their contributions, since the bulk of the article is by anonymous authors. We can, however, use it as a guide for rewriting this article, although we should bear in mind that it is not a [[Battlestar wiki:Citation Jihad\|reliable source]]. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 17:59, 18 October 2005 (EDT)
			:::Ow, and ouch. The rewrite is not difficult. But sourcing for TOS stuff is more so, as you know, since this data has become electronically searchable long after TOS has left the air, and that material is likely conpromised with fan-fiction, games, and the like. For this, TOS episodes will have to remain the final source since it is unlikely to find official stats from a show long-gone, and I doubt Universal will be talking about anything other than RDM BSG. Will have to apply the KISS principle to this and many other TOS articles for this reason. [[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 18:11, 18 October 2005 (EDT)