Editing Talk:Mars Day/Archive 1

Mars is not the first Roman god mentioned. Mercury is the Roman equivalent of Hermes. There may be other instances of Roman mythology cropping up, but that's the only one I know of. [[User:Alpha5099|Alpha5099]] 12:14, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
:There is also [[The Eye of Jupiter]]. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 12:18, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
::Hermes Class battlestar is pure fanon --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] <sup>([[User talk:Mercifull|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull|Contribs]])</sup> 12:21, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
:::I think Alpha was trying to contrast the name rather than suggest a fanon class. I added the relevant part back in. Yeah, I've noted that Roman issue in "Jupiter" as well. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 12:25, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
Why is there "holiday" in parenthesis after the article title? There's nothing else to disambiguate this from. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 18:10, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
: Good question. Judging from Mercifull's reasoning, he felt that it should be disambiguated as [[Colonial Day (holiday)]] was. Honestly, I think it should be moved back, since no disambiguation is necessary. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 19:07, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
::Marsday could also be Tuesday, for in French the word for Tuesday is Mardi, and its roots are Roman.
::Examples: (Monday -> Lundi -> Lune di -> Moon day) (Tuesday -> Mardi -> Mars di -> Mars day) (Wednesday -> Mercredi -> Mercure di -> Mercury day) (Thursday -> Jeudi -> Jupiter di -> Jupiter day)
:::Those examples work for the romance languages, but not english. Sometimes they're equivalent (Tyr's Day -> Tuesday), sometimes not (Wodin's Day -> Wednesday.) [[User:PrePressChris|PrePressChris]] 16:56, 12 October 2006 (CDT)
::I know "di" isn't the french word for day, it's jour, but I think this is how the French days of the week were formed. I just thought I'd throw this in the fray for speculation's sake, I don't expect it to make it onto the article page. [[User:MASON|Mason]] 01:09, 11 October 2006 (CDT)
:::Judging from the context of this "day", and how Roslin uses it in her voiceover, it strongly appears to be a holiday, and not the normal name of a day-of-the-week. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 05:57, 11 October 2006 (CDT)
::::It's unclear from the context if the reference is to a standard "day of the week" or to a holiday of some kind. Roslin was shown praying before that scene, so it may be that she's just more conscious of the meaning of a common day name. I don't think we should be calling it a 'holiday' until that's cleared up. [[User:PrePressChris|PrePressChris]] 16:56, 12 October 2006 (CDT)
:::::I would agree. I would also strongly point out that we shouldn't be calling it a "Colonial weekday", either. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 17:09, 12 October 2006 (CDT)
::::::Agreed. "Mars Day" without any parenthesis or other qualification would be appropriate for now. [[User:PrePressChris|PrePressChris]] 19:11, 12 October 2006 (CDT)
::::::My addition of "First mentioned in" to the Occupation reference was reverted. I can understand the need for concision, but I think it's useful to make such distinctions to spare people clicking through only to find that it was only a mention, and not a major plot point. (C.f., "Colonial Day".) Is this a style issue? --[[User:PrePressChris|PrePressChris]] 20:29, 14 October 2006 (CDT)
:::::::([[Occupation]]) and (first mentioned in [[Occupation]]) are the same; the second is needlessly verbose. If it's mentioned again, then the citation would look something like this ("[[Occupation]]", "Some Other Episode"). That's how I look at it, and that's how we've always done it here. The style for this is at the [[BW:SC|Standards and Conventions]] page, although it's not explicitly spelled out there. Of course, should the entry ever grow beyond its current form then we could always add something in the notes of when it was first mentioned, or some such. Would anyone else like to chime in? :-) -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 20:40, 14 October 2006 (CDT)
::::::::Forgive me if it's bad form to respond before others chime in. This is perhaps a style point that needs to be spelled out. I can go with either, but personally I'd prefer to have some indication of the relevance of the link. Even if there are no other episodes that mention it, it's still useful to have some idea of whether it was a mention or a plot point. The easiest way I can think of to do this is to distinguish mentions (E.g., "first mentioned in" or "mentioned it" vs., say, just "Colonial Day") I realize this opens up a whole other can of worms (what makes a plot point vs. a mention) but it is something that I would find useful as a user of this site. --[[User:PrePressChris|PrePressChris]] 22:19, 14 October 2006 (CDT)

If I may: the standards do spell out the use of citations. See [[BW:SAC#Links to Episodes]]. We don't use quotes around episode names unless in multiples within parentheses or as part of a sentence.. It flows better not to use the episode name as part of the sentence, such as, "Lee Adama is moody in the episode, "Pegasus." Rather, go for "Lee Adama is moody (Pegasus)." There is much overlap in events, so "first mentioned" is redundant; the first instance of the event should be the episode cited. There is  a point where we can be overly concise or overly informative. Most of this is style, but if you have a suggestion for a style change, we're all ears. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 23:05, 14 October 2006 (CDT)
:The style information is rather sparse there. Maybe this is something that's conventional amonq MediaWikis?  I completely agree with conciseness as mentioned, and perhaps it's simply because there *isn't* any more info on Mars Day that the nature of the citation nags at me. The way it's presented it seems (to me) like the link implies it leads to more info than is actually there, and a simple qualifyer would prevent that. That said, I'm content to get my two (or twenty) cents in. I'll drop this, but it might be prudent to cite it as a case example in Style. Sorry if I tied up anybody's time. --[[User:PrePressChris|PrePressChris]] 23:19, 14 October 2006 (CDT)