|
|
| (494 intermediate revisions by 66 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| : ''View [[Talk:Main Page/Archive|archived discussions]] prior to July 7, 2005 at the link provided.'' | | {{Template:Archive-bot |
| | |archiveheader = {{archive-message|newarchive=%(counter)d}} |
| | |maxarchivesize = 32K |
| | |counter = 5 |
| | |minthreadsleft = 0 |
| | |algo = old(5d) |
| | |archive = Talk:Main Page/Archive%(counter)d |
| | }}{{ArchiveTOC}} |
|
| |
|
| == Suggestions ==
| | __TOC__ |
|
| |
|
| To make any suggestions as to the format of the main page, please leave them here. Thanks! -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 21:49, 9 Jul 2005 (EDT)
| | == Quote of the day. == |
|
| |
|
| Hello Joe, I was wondering if their might be a possibility of us adding on a message board for members of BSG Wiki to discuss the actual show rather than the website itself. I think that if we created a community message board it would promote a greater community/fraternity among the members and if we limited it to members it might decrease the number of random messages left on the board. I know it is kind of unwiki of us to do this but since this particular site it concerned with BSG rather than a plethora of items I thought it might be a good idea. What do you think? [[User:Zarek Rocks]]
| | Why was the quote of the day section removed from the main page. That was one awesome section which automatically updated daily, and gave us some kind of dynamism in the main page. It would be really nice if that could be added back. I don't have rights to edit the main page. So, some one with rights should do it. -- [[User:CylonU87|CylonU87]] 05:32, 23 February 2012 (EST) |
| | |
| :If you're looking for a good BSG-related message board, you could try the one at [http://forums.televisionwithoutpity.com/index.php?showforum=745 Television Without Pity] --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 22:40, 9 Aug 2005 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| :: I know that there is a pretty good message board at [http://www.galacticastation.com Galactica Station], as well. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 16:34, 10 Aug 2005 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| == Style Conventions ==
| |
| | |
| I didn't know what the approaite discussion page for this would be, so I am putting it here as a first stab. I have a question about the "tense" convention being used here on BSG-wiki. While some have noted that this is not wikipedia, I am curious as to why we are using present tense usage on events which occurred prior to the current "timeline" within the show? It seems to me events as they unfold and described here, should be used in the past-tense while ongoing terms and concepts that are presumed still active within the context of the "current timeline" of the show would be present-tense. For example, shouldn't descriptions of Baltar's background, and events which have already occurred on Caprica, etc. be in the past-tense, while referring to him as the Vice-President, and duties onboard ''Galcatica'', etc. be present-tense? Likewise shouldn't passages about say the development of the Mark II Viper be past-tense, while current disposition and capabilities of the Mark II be present-tense? Not trying to be overly pedantic, but if we were to use and adopt the convention that this "encyclopedia" were to be discussing things and concepts within BSG as if it "were real" so-to-speak, like say in a present day encyclopedia would describe the development of the F-14 Tomcat in past-tense terms but describe current description of the presently active variants of the F-14 (i.e. the F-14D) and its deployment and present status within the arsenal of the United States Navy, it would be present-tense. Contrast that with descriptions of say, a WWII German Stuka Bomber which would all be past-tense in a current day encyclopedia. Any thoughts? [[User:Lestatdelc|Lestatdelc]] 12:38, 30 November 2005 (EST)
| |
| | |
| ::The [[Battlestar Wiki:Standards and Conventions]] project article should be your first stop. Lords know we've all gone this way and that over the very things you've noted. You'll probably find your answer there (and see my reply to you on my talk page on the specifics of tense in character pages based on what's in the standard). --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 13:26, 30 November 2005 (EST)
| |
| | |
| == Quote-o-Matic ==
| |
| What's with the (non-working) quote o the day on the front page? Is this a template problem, or what? Can I help? ....or what? [[User:Colonial one|Colonial one]] 22:54, 16 Aug 2005 (EDT)
| |
| :There is no automatic script to generate the quotes. They must be added manually per day. You can add them yourself, should you choose to take up the task. :-) -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 23:09, 16 Aug 2005 (EDT)
| |
| ::I'd like to add a quote, but, uh... I don't want to mess it up because it then won't be seen for a year, I think. Is there a way to look at quotes that have already been put in, so I can copy the formatting? I tried the little Quote link, but the one that was added for 08 29 wasn't on there, so I think that's not right. Or something. I'm such a confused noob. ;) --[[User:Day|Day]] 00:59, 30 August 2005 (EDT)
| |
| :: That's OK, Day. I (or someone) can do a template for a quote-of-the-day. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 09:49, 30 August 2005 (EDT)
| |
| :::On that note, how can I see a list of templates, in case I want to utilize one. So far the only way I've figured it out, is to find a page that uses it, edit that, to steal the template info, then go to the place I'd want to use it, paste it in, then change the stuff appropriately. --[[User:Day|Day]] 11:50, 30 August 2005 (EDT)
| |
| :::Whenever this all gets sorted out, I guess it needs to go here: [[Template:Quote of the Day/Readme]]. I can certainly do it, it's just the link is small, and I thought I'd note it here for future reference, as well. --[[User:Day|Day]] 05:09, 31 August 2005 (EDT)
| |
| ::::So... I guess I should go ahead and ask some specific questions... I assume we incluse the words said in double-quotes. It's really the attributation... attribution... Whatever--the indication of who said it that's the issue. Do we put the name with a dash before? Two dashes? Do we do it in-line or on the next one down or two down? Do we do it in italics or bold or normal font? Do we say the situation all the time or only if needed? Should we link the episode it came from? These are the kinds of things I think should be in the readme. --[[User:Day|Day]] 19:15, 1 September 2005 (EDT)
| |
| :Yo, just thought I'd add that I worked on the [[Quotes]] page quite a bit. It displays all current quotes (that I know of). And it should be super-easy to link to more quotes now, just check the source for example. ~ [[User:Aero|Aero]] 00:06, 30 September 2005 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| == NPOV? ==
| |
| Does BattlestarWiki have a NPOV policy, as Wikipedia.org does? I was noticing some pretty strong POV in [[James Callis]], for example. --[[User:Fang Aili|Fang Aili]] 10:10, 12 September 2005 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| : It does, indeed. For reference, see the [[Battlestar Wiki:Welcome, newcomers]] page. Hope that's helpful. --[[User:Day|Day]] 18:04, 12 September 2005 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| There also seems to be a great deal of opinion in the "analysis" section of most episode guides. Is it the intent to not use NPOV in this section? - Jason
| |
| | |
| == Fan Fiction ==
| |
| Since we don't have a community portal yet, I suggest listing fan fiction pages here for later deletion or movement to the forthcoming fanfiction site.
| |
| * [[History of the Twelve Colonies of Kobol]] --[[User:Fang Aili|Fang Aili]] 12:18, 13 September 2005 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| ==IRC Channel?==
| |
| Some friends and I have an [irc://irc.villageirc.net/battlestargalactica IRC channel] set up for discussion of BSG. Would it be appropriate/acceptable to link to it in the 'Community' box on the [[Main Page]]? Or elsewhere? ~ [[User:Aero|Aero]] 00:06, 30 September 2005 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| == How BSG Wiki Compares to Other Wikis ==
| |
| | |
| I've been visiting other wikis that include SF content, just to compare them to the BSG Wiki. You can visit yourself, but I'm happy to say that, in my slightly-biased review, the Battlestar Galactica Wiki is among the most concise, detailed, and well-maintained wikis of its kind, although there's lots of work to be done. If I were to give a rating out of ten stars to the places I've visited, these would be my grades, based on
| |
| | |
| # Depth and relevant content (overall breadth of material; is it a true encyclopedia or overly-POV?)
| |
| # Detail of popular pages, such as central characters or events
| |
| # Photo content and other illustrative content in articles
| |
| # Server speed, wiki navigation and design, and convenience in access
| |
| | |
| * '''Battlestar Wiki''': 7.5 out of 10
| |
| * '''[http://en.wikipedia.org Wikipedia]''': 9.5 out of 10
| |
| * '''[http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Main_Page Memory Alpha]''', the Star Trek wikpedia: 9 out of 10
| |
| * '''[http://tgm.firstones.com/wiki/Main_Page The Great Machine]''', the Babylon 5 wikipedia (of which BSG Wiki was inspired): 4 out of 10
| |
| * '''[http://tviv.org/wiki/Main_Page The TVIV Wiki]''', a general TV episode encyclopedia: 6.5 out of 10
| |
| | |
| Of these, the venerable '''Wikipedia''' still holds as king of the wikis with the many, many contributors that are ceaseless in their relative accuracy. Only the anonymous editing (and resultant spamming) deters from this site. Almost every page in Wikipedia has substantial content or illustration. '''Battlestar Wiki''' lacks the sheer number of pages (of which I cannot accurately determine; how about an article counter, Joe?) but its depth and relevant information per page on its best pages equals Wikipedia's standard. BSG Wiki has one Achille's Heel; ''the comparative lack of information on the Original Series pages as opposed to the Re-imagined Series is almost shameful'', which brought the wiki's personal score down 1 point.
| |
| | |
| The '''Babylon 5 Wiki''', where Joe got his inspiration to build this wiki, is sadly in poor shape. Central character pages such as Delenn and Sheridan are extremely sparse, almost to major stub levels. Episode pages aren't bad, although they're remarkably short in comparison to BSG Wiki's. '''Memory Alpha Wiki''' is a powerfully built wiki for Star Trek, with excellent cross referencing and depth on character and episode pages. Perhaps the wiki is ''too'' large as the massive amount of aired information, combined with book and fan fiction and serious contradictive elements makes for reading the wiki a bit of a chore. And, unfortunately, Star Trek has serious canonical issues that make the wiki's data difficult to authenticate. On a lighter note, '''The TVIV Wiki''' is a fun wiki to any television show, which includes some BSG episode pages with GREAT screen caps. It just got started last July and has some performance issues, but is shaping up to be a good wiki.
| |
| | |
| BSG Wiki is coming up on its one-year anniversary, and has a lot to show for itself. Congratulations to everyone as a fellow contributor, and help the lesser wikis out when you're not pondering things here. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 15:48, 6 December 2005 (EST)
| |
| | |
| : Wow. I really have nothing to add to this -- it's pretty much spot on. Particularly the point of the difference in quality between TOS and TNS content. If anything else, it demonstrates that there's more interest in TNS than TOS. (Although this doesn't mean that this isn't an area that needs work -- it does.) Another minor note, I really didn't get the inspiration from the B5 Wiki -- I was more inspired by the Lurker's Guide than anything else -- but the only thing that is inspired from it is the main page format, that's really it. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 16:12, 7 December 2005 (EST)
| |
| | |
| == Logo ==
| |
| [[Image:Bsg logo test.jpg]]<br>
| |
| Made a new logo for the wiki. Do people prefer it? And is it possible to change anyway?--[[User:Undc23|Undc23]] 02:54, 3 January 2006 (EST)
| |
| | |
| : Heh. This is the third (as far as I know) new logo on offer. Cf. [[User talk:Joe.Beaudoin#Logo]] --[[User:Day|Day]] 15:35, 3 January 2006 (EST)
| |
| | |
| == Quotes link ==
| |
| | |
| This is all fairly trivial, but at the bottom of the page there is 2 links for quote of the day: readme and edit. The readme one links the current quote, which seems a little pointless to me when you can read it on the main page. Also readme implies a helpful explanation of something or whatever. Edit is an external style link for some reason. Plus "article of the day" is the articles of intrest, and not updated daily. As I said, not important, just thought I'd point it out.--[[User:Undc23|Undc23]] 07:22, 7 January 2006 (EST)
| |
| :We've been discussing this for the past week or so; can't seem to find "quality" articles...--[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 11:25, 7 January 2006 (EST)
| |
| ::I agree that we need to wait for the wiki to grow before having an article of the day, I'm just suggesting that the link be renamed to articles of intrest as it actually is in the meantime.--[[User:Undc23|Undc23]] 20:13, 7 January 2006 (EST)
| |
| | |
| == Article count ==
| |
| | |
| It'd be cool to have an article count near the top of the page. Most wikis have one, and I think its neat. Almost 1000 articles now :).--[[User:Undc23|Undc23]] 02:43, 29 January 2006 (EST)
| |
| : I'll put one up next time I get to edit the Main Page. (Actually, any admin can now edit the main page directly, should the choose.) And most of those thousand articles are quality as well... Spencerian and Steelviper have been rooting out the "telephone" articles. :-) -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 08:52, 29 January 2006 (EST)
| |
| | |
| == Punctuation ==
| |
| | |
| Hello, I'm new and my edits have so far been of the proofreading type (that's what I'm good at), and I've noticed a particular area of inconsistency in commas/periods and quotation marks. Since it has been decided that we shall prefer American spellings, perhaps we should also use American punctuation style, which places commas and periods inside quotation marks. I have seen them this way a few places, but I've mostly seen the British style used, which places commas and periods outside the quotation marks. I don't care either way, but I think consistency is good so there should be a guideline one way or the other. [[User:Bunchofpants|Bunchofpants]] 08:40, 5 February 2006 (EST)
| |
| : IMO British style is much, much easier, both to write and to read. --[[User:Redwall|Redwall]] 09:43, 5 February 2006 (EST)
| |
| : Then perhaps we should declare "British style" the rule so that those of us who fret over punctuation can change the non-British occurrences to match.[[User:Bunchofpants|Bunchofpants]] 10:20, 5 February 2006 (EST)
| |
| ::Welcome to the wiki, Bunchofpants. You've noted a significant inconsistancy we do, and I'm a bit guilty as well. Punctuation ''should'' (based on my experience) be within quotations (such as, "Kara, you're just crazy."). But, when dealing with episode references in parentheses, our convention is to place the punctuation after the episode reference, outside of the quotes. (Tyrol says "Put the gun down" ([[Fragged]]).) This convention, I think, is fine. However, in sentences without episode references, the punctuation should be inside. I'll need to check our policies, where, if we don't make up our own policy, we tend to stick with Wikipedia policy. Another administrator may also have an opinion to this. So that others can chime in, we should move this discussion to [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions]].--[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 10:26, 5 February 2006 (EST)
| |
| | |
| This is, I think, probably because we're on the internet. Apparently, I think according to the hacker slang dictionary which I don't have time to find a link to, it is very, very common amongst prolific internet users to use the British style, not because we're all Anglophiles, but because we tend to have a large cross section with the computer science community. Basically, if the period is not part of the quote, you don't put it so that the reader can tell ''exactly'' what goes in the quotes. Especially in help menus for *NIX systems, that use it so that you know the command is "hup" or whatever, rather than "hup." which would be wrong if "hup" were the actual command. Anyway... I like this system. The end. --[[User:Day|Day]] 10:27, 5 February 2006 (EST) (Post Script: Let's allow a few days for discussion. Maybe move this to S&C? ''I HATE EDIT CONFLICTS'')
| |
