Talk:The Caprican/Archive 1

How accurate should we consider information published within the Caprican? It's an official Syfy product, and ostensibly written by the show production staff...does information contained in Caprican articles qualify for inclusion in the wiki? -- Liquidcross 14:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

As of right now, the information should be added with the caveat that it is: a) noted that the information comes from an official Syfy product, and b) it is written using information from the production, but it may not necessarily be canon, even if it elaborates on people, events and other items that are introduced in Caprica episodes. Basically, we add information from it. If it contradicts information that's already been established, we add it anyway but note that it is a contradiction and the reason why that is the case. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Battlestar Pegasus} 14:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

With Caprica Cancelled

What will happen to these articles? The Internet Archive would save them right?--DrWho42 23:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It may or may not, but since the Wiki probably would not be allowed to reproduce all the blog posts in their entirety, we should make sure that any pertinent information is incorporated in various Wiki articles (while making it clear that the information comes from the blog and may not be canon, of course). -- Graf Iblis 17:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, there isn't a listing on the Internet Archive, so we'll have to archive them. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 17:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

So just start copying and pasting the articles themselves onto the Wiki as individual articles?--DrWho42 21:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

That would be ideal (along with pictures, of course), but I am not sure if it is consistent with Fair Use. -- Graf Iblis 15:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Given that the content will not be available elsewhere (once Syfy takes down the site, it's basically gone), and that we're using it for reference, we need to have copies of the original articles to refer to. Therefore, it's more of a necessary evil that we have copies of the data, either as PDFs or what have ya. (Also, the data was technically promotional for the show, no different than posters, really.) Basically, same concept as having transcripts of RDM's BSG podcasts; they're freely available and promote the show, and so having another source for them isn't going to hurt anything. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 16:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

What about @SergeGraystone's tweets? A lot of them contain interesting information. -- Graf Iblis 18:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah... I was going to ask about that too, but how often are Twitter accounts deleted/deactivated? I hardly use Twitter enough to call myself a Twat (or whatever Twittests call themselves) so I wouldn't know.--DrWho42 20:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Run with it, too. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 20:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Now that I'm looking at the article, it might be better to remove the date headings altogether and place all the articles into one huge table, with two additional columns showing the date/time of publication and the fictional date. The sorting function would become more useful that way (e.g. if someone wanted to see which journalist wrote the most articles). I might reorganize it like that at some point. -- Graf Iblis 17:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 22:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

As per the comment by Graf Iblis, I have removed the date headings and placed all the articles into one humungous table. Its available at User:CylonU87/Sandbox/The Caprican‎‎. Everyone, please take a look and comments are welcome. The idea was to make the table sortable by date, article types, authors, etc. -- CylonU87 09:38, 29 January 2012 (EST)

Looks good. I like it. Personally, I'd remove the notes by the headlines (or at least put them in reference tags).--DrWho42 00:14, 2 February 2012 (EST)

Yeah, I was planning to remove those notes anyway. Just wanted to look at them in detail as to know why they are there in the first place. And for some reason the wiki table sorting hasn't worked very well. All the fields are being treated as alphanumeric, so when you sort by the date for example, it does not work. Any ideas on how to fix that. Otherwise it seems to be pointless to have one big huge table. Feel free to make changes, Don't hesitate because its under my userpage namespace. -- CylonU87 01:57, 2 February 2012 (EST)