Editing User talk:Serenity/Archive2

{{talkarchive}}

== "Link title" stuff ==

The "Link title" stuff has to do with the editing bar. I believe the user might have hit that accidentally when beginning to edit. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki &mdash; ''New'']</sup> 13:43, 19 November 2007 (CST)
:Yeah, probably. Though I can only see [] and [[]] there. But never mind. No big deal. :) --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 13:48, 19 November 2007 (CST)
== Immunity to virus ==

Sorry for posting it again, thought the change failed to save since you removed it so fast. Anyway I have to disagree with your reasons - Cottle says "couple hundred years ago", a couple is 2 so its 200 years ago and it is very relevent since its a major clue as the history of the cylons. Since they didn't have an immunity to the virus then it implies they are based on material that is at least 200 years old{{unsigned|Swozie}}
:"a couple" means "a few". That can be anything from 2 to maybe 4 or 5. In any case, it's not an accurate date. If you had written something like "'''over''' 200 years BCH", then ''maybe''. I still question its relevance. It's another speculative topic, especially with the shaky science of the episode. As it's written now, it's stands there without any point. One could add that piece of speculation/analysis, but that's not really fitting for a timeline. It could be added as analysis, or better question to the episode article though. Actually, it's already touched on about [[A Measure of Salvation#Analysis|3/4th of the way down]]. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 15:13, 4 January 2008 (CST)
::A couple does not mean a few! A few means 3,4,5 or whatever, a couple means 2 thats all there is to it (as Cottle would say). It borders speculation that it is relevant to cylon history which is why I didn't say that - thats left up to the reader to interpret but since its a valid piece of information on Coloniel History then this is the most relevant place for it. {{unsigned|Swozie}}
:::The term is used ambigiously when referring to time. It might technically mean two, but when people say "A couple of days" they don't always mean two, or they might as well say it. The [http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/couple Oxford dictionary] says "an indefinite small number" as a possible definition. Anyways, it's already mentioned on the episode page, and there is a [[Cylon History]] article too. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 15:47, 4 January 2008 (CST)

I can't believe there can be so much fuss over such a simple change. Cottle says "a couple hundred years ago", a couple means 2, its speculation that he meant approx 200 years based on your experience of how other people would use the term. I was just posting a hard fact effectively pasted direct from the show and you disagree with it! Do you want facts in this site or just your interpretation of facts? I fully agree that you shouldn't have speculation posted but I didn't speculate anything here and besides the site has an awful of preconceptions posted as facts that need to be made clearer, I would like to contribute in this way but it involves this much hassle then its a waste of my time.

Your recent change is better but you say "at least 200 years" and this could mean 200 to million years or more which obviously isnt what Cottle says - just change it to "couple hundred" years as Cottle says!! {{unsigned|Swozie}}
:Swozie, please calm down. You say you "can't believe there can be so much fuss over such a simple change", but you're the one making the fuss here. "A couple of ..." is generally meant as "a few ...", not exactly 2. Ask anyone, they'll agree. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]])</sup> 16:10, 4 January 2008 (CST)
:It simply does not mean ''exactly'' two years. Yeah, I'm making too much of a fuss about it and it's annoying me too. Removing it was probably jumping the gun; sorry. I can add a footnote about Cottle's dialogue, but it's really pretty clear how he means it. But I could also say that you want your interpretation of facts noted. This cuts both ways. There are an awful lot of theories about things floating around and it's impossible to give room to everything, so we either eliminate speculation entirely or try to stick to the most sensible interpretations until something is clarified. Again, the best place for this stuff is the Analysis section of the episode pages. They usually have room to write more a bit more about something and are also read by many people. It's also ideal for challenging "preconceptions" with new ideas as long as they're not too outlandish (like some of the stuff on the Final Five, Earth, etc. that can be found on forums).
:Btw, please sign your comments with four tildes: <nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki>. There is also a quick link below the edit box for it. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 16:17, 4 January 2008 (CST)

OK I am calm! I just didn't think it was in line with the timeline if I had written "couple" where all the other items are listed with numbers. So do you suggest I talk about changes before making them in the future?
--[[User:Swozie|Swozie]] 16:38, 4 January 2008 (CST)
:I don't think that will be necessary, unless you're planning to rewrite half an article. If it's a little thing like this, just make the change, and someone will spot it and undo it if they think it's wrong. Please don't be discouraged by the fact that one of your first edits was met by controversy: that's just bad luck. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]])</sup> 16:44, 4 January 2008 (CST)
:Nah, it was fine. Usually things don't spiral out of control like this. :s Of course I could have opened a discussion before removing it, but that's really the same problem. There a few approximate dates on the page with "ca.", so they don't all have to be exact. If something isn't clear, they just have a footnote with the source or reasoning. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 16:50, 4 January 2008 (CST)

ok cool well before I make any more changes I need you to clarify what you interpret as speculation. The cylons not having immunity "implies" that they are based on material that is at least a "couple" hundred years old. Simon even says that they are all based on material from the same genetic pool. Now I appreciate this can lead to wild theories but I don't see it as speculation, its logical deduction, whether you believe it or not is another matter. However the same page talks about "at some unlisted time, travel occured from Earth to Kobol (because of the constellation map)". This is no different, the evidence implies travel from Earth to Kobol, its never stated as fact its just deduced.--[[User:Swozie|Swozie]] 17:11, 4 January 2008 (CST)
:The Cylons' genetic pool doesn't need to be hundreds of years old. They probably made some modifications to human DNA (since they're different from humans), which could have accidentally removed the immunity. The Cylons' inability to breed could have a similar cause. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]])</sup> 04:18, 5 January 2008 (CST)
::Exactly my point - you are speculating, having to make up something to suppport your preconceived ideas of the show.--[[User:Swozie|Swozie]] 06:02, 5 January 2008 (CST)
:::Again, the same could be said about you. One reason why I was hesitant to include that part is because hardly anyone will make a connection to the creation of the humanoid Cylons. Having it there is certainly more unfounded speculation than not as it hints at an assumed connection. As said, it's something for episode analysis, or simply the question section. Like "Is the date of the viral infection a hint towards the Cylons' age?". That points people at the information without really stating anything. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 06:12, 5 January 2008 (CST)
:::Having watched this conversation, I happen to agree. The Timeline is the wrong place for this kind of speculation, which should be limited to the episode guide (whether as a question or analysis point). As for the point about the constellations, it's common sense that the constellations (as depicted in "Home, Part II" can only be seen from Earth in those configurations, otherwise they would either be reversed or otherwise distorted). -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki &mdash; ''New'']</sup> 06:26, 5 January 2008 (CST)

What the hell are you lot talking about!! I mention putting a fact in the timeline, a fact that is mentioned in the show, thats it, THE FACT, this is a site for facts yes? Thats all there is to it, who cares about what the reader might read into it, thats up to the reader not you - you dont not list a fact because your worried readers might read too much into it, thats up to them not you. What you doing is restricting facts that you don't feel appropriate - does this give you some sort of power trip, excercising some cheap form of mind control? Oh I am calm - but its a shame because this site is great, there is alot of work put into it that by like minded individuals but it has an awful lot of assumptions written into it, its almost like you can't add anything if it hints in anyway to a story line that doesnt conform to your preconceived ideas of what the show is about, in short its your own personal view on BSG and not the objective view that I thought it was, I got the wrong idea of the purpose of this site and I apologize for that, good luck with all your hard work in the future --[[User:Swozie|Swozie]] 19:49, 5 January 2008 (CST)
: Swozie, I'm sorry that you feel that way. The issue here appears more or less to be communication... or rather, how complicated this discussion has become. 
: I have a suggestion in that regard... If you could restate your views more clearly we may be able to work from that, since the conversation above does appear to be somewhat confusing to me. As such, I think what you, Serenity, and Catrope are talking about seems to have become clouded.
: In response to your power trip comments, none of us here are on a "power trip" and to make such a claim really detracts from the arguments you're trying to make, which is both unfortunate and regrettable. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki &mdash; ''New'']</sup> 19:59, 5 January 2008 (CST)
:Of course it's speculative, and I added a note to that effect now. But it also held up over time. This isn't the first discussion about this. Every now and then someone presents some other theory. At the end it always stayed more or less the same. Probably because it makes the most sense. So there is some consensus on that here. And not just between the admins. Yes, one could arrange it differently, but some of the ideas out there are just too crazy. The only alternative would be to just say "4000 years: age of the temple of the five", "2000 years: age of the ruins on kobol" without any interpretation. But some people would probably miss that.
:As for your addition. Sorry that there was so much trouble about it, but it's there now. It's also not about the addition per se, but that hardly anyone will think "oh. 200 years! The Cylons have to be older than that!" It's fine now, but posing such questions is precisely what the episode guides are for. That you can't add such things just isn't right. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 05:59, 6 January 2008 (CST)
== Moving the TOC ==

This can also be done by adding <nowiki>__TOC__</nowiki> wherever you want the TOC to appear. This not only moves the TOC to that position, but also forces it to appear even if it normally wouldn't (less than four sections in the article). There's also its brother, <nowiki>__NOTOC__</nowiki>, of course. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]])</sup> 08:59, 4 February 2008 (CST)
:Ah cool. Let's try that :) Though the article isn't big enough to really need it anyways. -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 09:51, 4 February 2008 (CST)
::You'd think I'd learn that trick myself, which was the cause of the rearranging on that awkwardly appearing article, especially that "Overview" item. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 09:58, 4 February 2008 (CST)
:::Yeah, it doesn't look as good as some other articles for some reason. And leaving the TOC away with using div clears makes the spacing between the headers too large. I think it looks halfway decent now. One sentence, TOC + large picture + rest. -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 10:02, 4 February 2008 (CST)
== Questions on "Hero" and "The Passage" ==

Thanks for editing the questions I added -- your shortened wording is much clearer and better. [[User:Ka-Ping Yee|Ka-Ping Yee]] 03:18, 13 February 2008 (CST)
:No problem. With the "Hero" question is was not so much length but tense. "The Passage" strayed somewhat into analysis with the elaboration. Usually questions should be one to two short sentences. I could have moved it upwards, but even shortened the point still gets across. -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 04:48, 13 February 2008 (CST)
== Apsect ratio issue with images...? ==

It appears that some of the images you've recently uploaded have had their height stretched, like [[:Image:3x8-Medal-of-Distinction.jpg|this image]] and a few others... -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]]</sup> 16:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
:I think I didn't correct for the DVDs being anamorphic :/ I guess that's why it says that they need to be stretched to 850 pixels. -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 20:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
== Widescreen ==

You using the widescreen skin now? :) [[User:Shane|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]])</sup> 19:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
:Not yet. Let me try. -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 19:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
== Crew ==

Thanks for all your help with the production staff edits today. Sorry I keep making little errors that you have to clean up!--[[User:Opark 77|Opark 77]] 22:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
:You don't have to apologize. Cleaning up after others is a natural thing as administrator here. But you're doing a great job and it's just some small things here and there, like capitalization and such. Nothing to worry about. :) -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 23:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
== Leoben ==

I agree that "Kara's Leoben" deserves a separate article (although I'm not sure of what the name should be), but disagree with the current division of the articles into "Number Two" and "Leoben Conoy". Prior to "[[Six of One]]" ''all''' copies of Two are referred to as "Leobens" by both Cylons and humans and having the Ragnar copy together with the Gemenon Traveler/New Caprica copy (assuming they're the same) in one article is like having the Armistice Station copy of Six in the Caprica Six article. [[User:Ausir|Ausir]] 13:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
:BTW, I copied our discussion to [[Talk:Number Two]], so let's continue there. [[User:Ausir|Ausir]] 13:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
@@ Line 62: / Line 62: @@
 I agree that "Kara's Leoben" deserves a separate article (although I'm not sure of what the name should be), but disagree with the current division of the articles into "Number Two" and "Leoben Conoy". Prior to "[[Six of One]]" ''all''' copies of Two are referred to as "Leobens" by both Cylons and humans and having the Ragnar copy together with the Gemenon Traveler/New Caprica copy (assuming they're the same) in one article is like having the Armistice Station copy of Six in the Caprica Six article. [[User:Ausir|Ausir]] 13:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 :BTW, I copied our discussion to [[Talk:Number Two]], so let's continue there. [[User:Ausir|Ausir]] 13:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-== About Commander, Air Group, Galactica's position history. ==
-Hey, I just undid your edit about CAG position history. Because in 401 He that Believeth in Me, right after Lt. Gaeta told Admiral Adama that Cylon Raiders are incoming against the fleet, Admiral Adama tells Helo as "CAG, take them out!"- which means he assumed his original post as CAG - and Helo ordered all standing by Vipers and Raptors to engage Cylon Raiders. {{unsigned|KCX}}
-:The thing is that the list becomes too bloated when we note every one-episode occurrence of a switch in positions that's ultimately completely inconsequential. And that happens a lot with XO and CAG. In the grand theme of things, it doesn't matter if he was CAG here for 10 minutes, because in the next episode, he's off on the ''Demetrius'' -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 10:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)