Editing Talk:Easter Eggs (RDM)/Archive 1

Hi, I've been an editing Battlewikipedian for a good long while now, but this is my first significant page I've created.  (Between the lines....please don't burn me at the stake if I've done some aspects of this not quite in line with our voluminous rules).

Since everyone has been catching so many Easter eggs from time to time, a discussion on a BSG blog led to me wondering if there was a master list of easter eggs here.  I tried "easter eggs," I tried, "easter," I tried "eggs, "homages," "hidden,"...but didn't see a match.  So, here is the "Easter Eggs (RDM) page, which as you can see is quite sad, like all new pages.

Is this a silly page?  It's not made to be funny, so I doubt it.  But collecting easter eggs is, as the name suggests, not to be taken seriously.  I'm sure someone out there has a good opinion on this and how to categorize these types of things.

So please now help us catalogue the touches to the show that normally had nothing to do with the plot. 

It would be most useful if ecah can be labelled with a timehack, described where in the episode it occurse, and/or with an appropriately credited photo.

- [[User:Keithustus|Keithustus]] 10:49, 23 October 2006 (CDT)
:Easter eggs are more like secret features on DVD's and things, this stuff is more like the [[Re-imagined Series References]] page --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] <sup>([[User talk:Mercifull|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull|Contribs]])</sup> 11:02, 23 October 2006 (CDT)
::Yeah, I was going to mention that. There is already some overlap with the "reference" page --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 11:27, 23 October 2006 (CDT)
::Concur. Also just wanted to note that it's a [[Pan Galactic]] logo. Though this does raise the issue of visibility of the Reimagined References page (linked by Merc above). If one didn't know about it, it would be (obviously) difficult to locate... --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 11:45, 23 October 2006 (CDT)

:::Thanks, Keithustus. I'm sorry that you had to have worked so hard to create what was already on the wiki. In which case, based on your search terms, the wiki let you down because none of your fellow contributors bothered to think of and add redirects for synonyms for easter eggs, redirecting them to the current article. Unless others have a reason against it, I'm more inclined to the use of "Easter eggs (RDM)" as a more appropriately named article. We'll probably have to mark Keith's article for deletion, but we should move anything new that's not in the References article. We should also visit the [[Talk:Re-imagined Series References]] to start this discussion. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 11:52, 23 October 2006 (CDT)
::::Well, the best part of digital distribution is that no, I didn't have to work all that hard.  Someone had pretty much that list on the message board where the issue came up, so I added the Wiki code and a couple 'eggs' of my own.  Nothing to it.  As far as the whole article for deletion and moving/copying info from references, etc....I'm not a wiki master and must let the pros handle that.  It will be quite a bit more useful if the "Easter Egg (RDM)" title and the references pages can be married.  Especially for people, like me, who never thought to try the word, "references." - [[User:Keithustus|Keithustus]] 23:22, 23 October 2006 (CDT)

==Re: Silly==

I don't really find this page to be Silly (at least, not the way [[Toaster]] is Silly (and I love that article, by the way)) ... Easter Eggs are a common phenomenon in many forms of media and are often meant as in-jokes or homages to influences or other works. I say, remove the silly tag ... unless this article is just going to be moved/merged/deleted, in which case, it's a non-issue. [[User:JubalHarshaw|JubalHarshaw]] 12:51, 24 October 2006 (CDT)
:Concur. It is, as you point out, likely to be a non-issue as this space is likely to be bulldozed and either become the new site of the "Reimagined References" or a redirect to the same. Silly pages have a minimum humor threshhold, and while the content of this article was certainly worthwhile (and happens to be catalogued elsewhere) it really isn't all that funny. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 13:03, 24 October 2006 (CDT)
:: Okay... so are we deleting/redirecting it or not? [[User:Viannah|Viannah]] 23:23, 26 October 2006 (CDT)
:: {{vd}} the silly for sure, but i'm for {{keep}} on the proposed deletion. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]])</sup> 00:43, 27 October 2006 (CDT)