Battlestar Wiki talk:Think Tank/Episode Standardization

From Battlestar Wiki, the free, open content Battlestar Galactica encyclopedia and episode guide
< Battlestar Wiki talk:Think Tank
Revision as of 12:06, 11 July 2006 by Day (talk | contribs) (Massive Edit)

Well I agree in general but could you point out specifically what you'd like to standardize? For example, I mean like pick one episode article in particular and say what about it should be standardized but more importantly how.

I myself was going to propose something like "standardize the Analysis sections", but I think that would fall under this: Our Analysis sections are in great need of standardization, but I was reluctant to change them myself for fear of ruffling feathers.----------------->Case in point, the Analysis for "Colonial Day" is...incredibly POV: this isn't a blog where we're writing an "episode review" in the Analysis section, Analysis is more for theorizing and pointing out trends. I mean yes like in Black Market we can point out "this episode has a lot of problems", but I think I tried to keep it to a minumum in there. ----->With everyone I've ever seen Colonial Day with at DVD parties and such, or on BSG messageboards, Colonial Day ranks as one of the favorites of Season 1. By the late season they really got good at scripting for the characters. But the analysis section of Colonial Day says right on the front line flatly that "This is the most poorly-conceived and executed episode in BSG's first season". It's POV for *me* to say I like it, but I still think that objectively, yes it had a good script I've already marked it for cleanup.

So I don't know specifically what you wanted to standardize about the episode guides, but the Analysis section is something I've been meaning to fix up, but was afraid about consensus for. --The Merovingian (C - E) 12:25, 9 July 2006 (CDT)

What really started me on this is that the first season episodes have the summary from Sci-Fi channel (which should I think should be in the episode article until it is aired). Those kind of things. Also, going back through "Questions" is probably a good idea. At least make the articles all "look" the same. However, you are correct about the "Analysis" section. I think that it is a fine line between "Analysis" and "Speculation" (which I personally unintentionally drift toward). We can add "Analysis" specifically to this project if you wish or it can be done as a followup. Do you have a particular article that you think the "Analysis" is a good example of "how-to"? I just think that if we have an "example" article, it would save on some discussions on individual articles. I made the proposal "thin" so others can add ideas to it. This is not "my" project, but something I am proposing from "us" to do. Also, I too have been thinking about how to rewrite the Colonial Day analysis which is clearly biased. --FrankieG 13:18, 9 July 2006 (CDT)

Is the Think Tank really the best place for this? BW:SC is where we usually deal with standardization issues. --Peter Farago 14:33, 9 July 2006 (CDT)

Yes, it's not so much a new policy as enforcing old ones more strictly. I'll bring up this discussion there. --The Merovingian (C - E) 17:16, 9 July 2006 (CDT)
I think this wasn't proposing the standards (which are pretty much BW:SC) but proposing a project page/organized effort to methodically go through the existing ones and enforce them. --Steelviper 12:24, 10 July 2006 (CDT)
Oh, I see. I have no objection to that. --Peter Farago 12:45, 10 July 2006 (CDT)

Massive Edit

I made some changes to the proposal to reflect some of what was discussed above. FrankieG, please change anything that I misstated. --Steelviper 13:35, 10 July 2006 (CDT)

Sounds great to me. Thanks for clarifying. I just wanted to get the ball rolling. --FrankieG 16:07, 10 July 2006 (CDT)
I'll get on this as soon as I'm done with my other 5 big projects. :) --The Merovingian (C - E) 18:41, 10 July 2006 (CDT)
You can do it. You're the "Merv" ;-). I don't my doing the work, just need a lot of guidance. --FrankieG 19:13, 10 July 2006 (CDT)

Right-o. This sounds to me to be kind of parallel to the Characters project. It would not outline guidelines, but be a kind of planning room for organized enforcement of them, as outlined in S&C. I think this is a good idea. I had, long ago, thought about proposing this, but wasn't sure as there's the template that seems to be in use and I'd just recently created S&C (didn't want to get in over my head, yeah?). This would help target specific, problematic episode articles and also probably help determine if any of the S&C regarding episodes need to be clarified, altered or created. --Day (Talk - Admin) 15:06, 11 July 2006 (CDT)


Since there don't appear to be any remaining objections to this, should we go ahead and put it to the one-week vote? --Steelviper 13:40, 11 July 2006 (CDT)

Vote to do what? We didn't agree on anything specific yet (I think). I'm going to smooth out what I think how things should be organized, and we'll see if they're fitting. --The Merovingian (C - E) 13:54, 11 July 2006 (CDT)