Talk:Main Page/Friends Section

From Battlestar Wiki, the free, open content Battlestar Galactica encyclopedia and episode guide

Why are we using small site icons on top of our own for external links? That seems to imply that those sites are subordinate to us, in some way. We should just use their regular logos. --Peter Farago 16:42, 29 April 2006 (CDT)

It doesn't suggset they are subordinate. The icons together means "partnership". If we where on top, it would say "Battlestar Wiki 'Sister Projects'" --Shane (T - C - E) 17:16, 29 April 2006 (CDT)
But we're not in "partnership" with them. We just admire the other sites and are offering links. --Peter Farago 17:17, 29 April 2006 (CDT)
then Special friends. Gateworld, as Joe pointed out, gives us permission to use images from thier site and we use alot of Wikipedia's stuff. We should even get a Memory Alpha Icon because they provided images also. I just don't think up these things, they are in most of the "Policy" pages that are in the Category:Wikipedia --Shane (T - C - E) 17:50, 29 April 2006 (CDT)
I completely disagree. Superimposing their logo on ours implies a relationship that does not exist. Mercifull, I understand that this is your department - it would be cool if you could upload stand-alone versions of these icons. If not, I'll do it later this week. --Peter Farago 04:25, 30 April 2006 (CDT)
Well.. if you upload new ones, make sure they are different files names. Those two images are used in the Markup project page and the gateworld template. --Shane (T - C - E) 07:48, 30 April 2006 (CDT)
Can i ask why you are even part of this project? --Shane (T - C - E) 07:55, 30 April 2006 (CDT)
Excuse me? It's going to be the first thing that people see, coming to the site. It's of concern to me. --Peter Farago 12:50, 30 April 2006 (CDT)
Your admin status does not grant you the right to what is shown. Only the power and ability to enforce the rules set forth by the Wiki master, Joe. If you had an objection and wanted an actiont aking, you should have asked the community, except you are the only person who objected and demandad a change. I bet you after I post this, Merv will object also. You abuse your power and an administrator making sure the site is PERFECT for you and your image. I am working on the site image, so don't give me this crap. You do this for every person that is here, and if I was a person to vote agaisnt your Rfa, I would have. Maybe you object to the wording? maybe we sould call them Special Links. Friends means something we trust. Which is part of a relationship. Again, you contradicted yourself on this page. --Shane (T - C - E) 14:43, 30 April 2006 (CDT)
Shane please be constructive, Peter is only trying to help. --The Merovingian (C - E) 15:06, 30 April 2006 (CDT)
I have been. I ask for people comments, I get none. So I am expecting everything is fine. And then when we get down to the wire to puting it live. Custrctive, I asked for cuntructive, and I get nothing. There is a huge sitenotice on the top of the website. Nothing else gets completed also because no one has read or commented on mu suggestions or ideas in some of the aspects of this project also. (i.e. Featured Article/Picture section.) I took the Community {{inuse}} section tag off because I was done with it. No one has commented on that either so I am guess it's it's perfect. Granted none of this cane go live without Joe, but I understand his sceheudle and Peter's. But as long as it is ready to go with just a "copy" and "paste", that would be the fastest transision. --Shane (T - C - E) 16:10, 30 April 2006 (CDT)
What is this "wire" of which you speak? Any deadline on the new main page going live is necessarily self-imposed. Furthermore, nothing stands in the way of commenting on or modifying portions of the new design after it is live. --Peter Farago 16:26, 30 April 2006 (CDT)
I am not even using my "admin status", let alone abusing it. I am offering my comments as a fellow user. If my wording seems forceful, it is because my opinion is strong. I would never attempt to use admin priveleges to enforce my opinion without an appropriate discussion beforehand, and consensus from the other admin staff. --Peter Farago 16:24, 30 April 2006 (CDT)
I actually often prefer trying to fix things up once they've gone live, because it's easier to see them functioning then; like the Quotes: it would have been very difficult to work all of the kinks out of that by setting it all up beforehand, but was much easier to adapt once we saw how it was atually functioning. --The Merovingian (C - E) 16:37, 30 April 2006 (CDT)

Friends

I know the friends thing isn't really an official thing, but is there a reason why MA was removed? Its not as if they've done anything really bad to us right? Pinching ideas from here and there isnt really that big a crime imo, especially in the Wiki circle where its all about helping each other out --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 08:28, 16 February 2007 (CST)

I agree that in the wiki environment collaboration is key. I think Shane's biggest issue was that he felt like no credit was given (whereas we have shown a history of crediting them whenever we use their ideas). That being said, I'm not sure if it's worth "burning a bridge" over, especially in what's mostly a passive-aggressive way. If we've got issues with them, we should bring it up with them. Otherwise, they're still a tremendous resource that we do link the hell out of. --Steelviper 09:49, 16 February 2007 (CST)
I concur on this. Wikipedia doesn't give us respect either, but we should note the allies we have, even if they are just as quiet as Wikihellpedia is (if not as snobby). It doesn't have to be an implicit quid pro quo arrangement with them (or any other wiki). --Spencerian 14:29, 16 February 2007 (CST)
Concur as well. Borrowing ideas is the nature of wikis. We've probably borrowed more content from MA than MA has borrowed from us. We should be gracious about it. --Peter Farago 14:56, 16 February 2007 (CST)