Battlestar Wiki talk:Citation Jihad: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 01:54, 11 April 2020

Archive 1 (September 29th, 2005 to April 9th, 2006):

Citation Consistency, Request for name change, BSG: The Magazine, Citation Format, Character Ages, Railguns, Twelve Lords of Kobol, Magazine Content, To Do, BSG Books, Sources namespace

Archive 2 (April 19th, 2006 to May 9th, 2006):

Koenigrules / Hollywood North Report, On anonymous sources, The Rumor Vote

Expunge List

Is there any central list of articles that need to be "expunged" per the new source policy? One example I found on Citation Jihad mission list:

The case of "Joyce" Hadrian

I wasn't 100% sure that the "Joyce" bit needed to be pulled, but I thought I'd note it so somebody more confident of the application of the rules might smite it. --Steelviper 12:23, 10 May 2006 (CDT)

It's been listed for months, and nobody's offered a source. We can probably smite it. --April Arcus 12:32, 10 May 2006 (CDT)

So it sounds like this is more of one of those "shoot on sight" situations rather than the elaborate recon, paint it with a laser, and drop a laser-guided "smart bomb" on it type of operations. So there won't be a "articles with anonymous/unofficial sources" categories or anything, as (hopefully) it would quickly be rendered obsolete? --Steelviper 12:40, 10 May 2006 (CDT)

Well, as you're aware, I like to extend new contributors the benefit of the doubt. So "shoot on sight" isn't quite right - it might still be useful to keep a section of this page for tracking dubious submissions. --April Arcus 12:45, 10 May 2006 (CDT)

Concur. While I did go through and outright delete the episode pages that contained "info" from unofficial sources, there may be things that slip through here are there. I'm not opposed to having a list kept here, or even at the Quorum for such things. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 12:59, 10 May 2006 (CDT)

SkyOne Bios

In response to the canonicity of the names Evelyn Adama and Dreilide Thrace, Merv wrote on Talk:Arts and Literature of the Twelve Colonies:

I don't know if we should [include them]: A) SkyOne isn't a definative source B) most importantly, This SkyOne information was *taken down*. It no longer exists online. Maybe they took it down....because it was no longer "correct"? I've pointed out in several character bios, notably Galactica-Sharon, that information from SkyOne's old bio stuff has in fact been contradicted several times by new information.

You are right: I was unaware that that was the sole source of William Adama's mother's name (his father's name is engraved on the lighter), but if SkyOne is indeed the sole source of this info I'm going to slap a proposal for deletion on "Evelyn Adama". We really shouldn't use it if it's not from Scifi, and was actually removed. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 18:33, 21 May 2006 (CDT)

A few points:

SkyOne and SciFi were co-equal partners in funding the first season. Any information from SkyOne is going to be just as accurate or innacurate as any information from SciFi, so we shouldn't employ a double standard.
You are correct that SkyOne's bios have been contradicted from time to time, as has some of SciFi's material. Our current policy is to defer to aired information, but to permit the use of other sources where no conflict exists. Do you object to this?
Although some portions have been discredited, other parts of the SkyOne bios have been born out by laters events - particularly, Thrace's father as a musician. It seems likely that the bios originated with information from the series bible, or at least benefited from the input of the writing staff - that is to say, they may not just be corporate fan fiction, but seem to have at least some reference value.

--April Arcus 18:58, 21 May 2006 (CDT)

Oh I don't think there are corporate fan fiction, I just think it's based on extremely early material which might not even be from the series bible (and even the series bible has been contradicted when new stories required it). We might *note* within the William Adama article that "Mother: Evelyn" (clickable reference number leading to bottom of page)--->source, SkyOne season 1 bio; not necessarily canonical. ---->But my point is, I don't think it justifies an article. And I also don't think Starbuck's father's tentative name should be used a lot, just as a trivia note on the Starbuck article. It's like the Miniseries novelization thing: we got hung up on that name the author made up for her, Natasi, as a matter of convenience, until it came to the point that it was apparent that no one else really called her that. My point being, we use a term of convenience, we just reinforce it. No, I don't think SkyOne's info is entirely accurate, as it was taken down. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 20:21, 21 May 2006 (CDT)

Sky One actually invested a lot of money into the first series of BSG, it even aired in the UK before it did in the US. I dont think you can completely rule out anyhting Sky One says as a source. --Mercifull 03:05, 22 May 2006 (CDT)

I still feel that all of this old SkyOne information, which no longer exists online, should be removed. It's not a matter of "Scifi.com was innacurrate on points just as Skyone was"--->while Scifi.com has a few problems, the SkyOne bios are filled with innacuracies. They don't match many things from the show. A few things were vaguely similar but that's not enough to validate the other information. As I said before: no one has this information anywhere else anymore, we're the only one's keeping it alive and in so doing we're effectively making BattlestarWiki a primary source, contrary to our mission. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 11:05, 20 June 2006 (CDT)

No Shane, you misunderstand: it's not that this is SkyOne or Skiffy, it's that the page was taken down: these articles no longer exist online at SkyOne. When I went to check (months ago) they weren't there, and someone told me there WERE there but were taken down. Far from a "blacklisting", it's information that's no longer extant. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 11:48, 20 June 2006 (CDT)

Just by clarity, wouldn't this be a clear "blacklist" of an official site? --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 11:43, 20 June 2006 (CDT)

As far as I can tell the SkyOne bios are gone from Skyone (I could be wrong.). I think that Merv is only talking about them. In that case, I think that the SkyOne Bios info should be deleted. The only caveat is that the same incorrect info may crop back up in the the future. If the info is somewhere and shown in error, then it may save work in the future having to make corrects. Make the section can be condensed down to just the "errors." Sorry, got to rambling. --FrankieG 11:51, 20 June 2006 (CDT)

What are the old URLs? --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 11:51, 20 June 2006 (CDT)

I don't even know: these articles are nowhere to be found on SkyOne. Someone copied them before they were removed, then posted them here later. By the time it was brought to my attention, the URL's were already gone. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 12:05, 20 June 2006 (CDT)

With that, I'm more for removing these bios, as they are now just as unsourced as the Zoic information on "other" battlestars like Galactica. With the series and its characters sufficiently matured, I find little use for these bios; we know far more about them from aired than unaired data, and this stuff can no longer be verified and sometimes conflicts. --Spencerian 12:10, 20 June 2006 (CDT)

Please refer to our previous discussion at Talk:Laura_Roslin#Source_for_SkyOne.3F, which contains a link to the best original source currently available. --April Arcus 13:32, 20 June 2006 (CDT)

If that's the best source, let's expunge the information. --CalculatinAvatar^(C-T) 13:45, 20 June 2006 (CDT)

I recall seeing the information at Sky One, but I understand why you think personal testimony is flimsy here. --April Arcus 15:48, 20 June 2006 (CDT)

This brings up a interesting question. What to do when an official source goes away? --FrankieG 16:25, 20 June 2006 (CDT)

I disagree with storing the information to blacklist it. Anything added without source should go, so it'd be redundant, and, more importantly, it might lead to the deletion of canon material because it was mentioned by a non-canon source before. --CalculatinAvatar^(C-T) 13:45, 20 June 2006 (CDT)

I was just playing devil's advocate that was the only reason I could come up to keep. Is a vote necessary? Seems like the existing policy covers it to me and consensus is clear. --FrankieG 14:56, 20 June 2006 (CDT)

In regards to the above comments, we could always use The Wayback Machine to see if a cached version of the pages in question still exist. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 16:49, 20 June 2006 (CDT)

That's why I was wondering about the URL's --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 17:18, 20 June 2006 (CDT)

After some intense searching for URL's, a possiblity that I can up with is that these bios' may have came from SkyActive, a SkyOne related interactive service that no longer exists. I found one reference where someone had typed them up off the service and posted them. --FrankieG 18:50, 20 June 2006 (CDT)

Ah yes i remember that. After each episode you could press the red button to get information on the episode and various series "facts" --Mercifull 19:18, 20 June 2006 (CDT)

We need to find out the final verdict on this, instead of delaying and getting behind on it. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 21:15, 28 June 2006 (CDT)

I concur, Merv. I say, since we can no longer corroborate it, we have to toss it. How useful are they now, anyway? --Day ^{(Talk - Admin)} 14:40, 29 June 2006 (CDT)

Deletion

I saw that Steelviper just deleted Sources:Sky One Profile of William Adama. I don't think this discussion reached a consensus to do this, but I wouldn't object if SV wanted to open a straw poll. --April Arcus 14:22, 28 June 2006 (CDT)

Actually, I deleted the "Sources" article, based not on this discussion (which, I admit, I hadn't been following that closely), but more on the individual instance of not having a source for that particular bio. The "Sources" article was almost an orphan in reality anyway, as I had just created it in order to save space on Spence's demo of a more concise William Adama. The "actual" main space reference was located in "William Adama" itself. I'll happily restore it, though, if that's what people want. I didn't mean to step on the toes of the mujahadin. --Steelviper 14:31, 28 June 2006 (CDT)

Well, I see your point, but I think the first thing to do is figure out a coherent policy toward the purported SkyOne info. After that, we can apply a consistant policy to all six bios and any pages citing them. I wonder if Bradley Thompson could help us confirm them in the absence of any wayback archives? --April Arcus 14:34, 28 June 2006 (CDT)

Now that the bio info is back in the William Adama article... do we need the "Sources" article? It seems like we should either transclude the "Sources" article or link to it from William Adama (with just a quick summary blurb on the main article) or dump the "Sources" article and let William Adama serve as the source. I'm just looking to get rid of the redundancy at this point. --Steelviper 14:38, 28 June 2006 (CDT)

From Battlestar Wiki:Official Communiques#SkyOne Biography Canonicity, I think that these are "unofficial" enough that we should either delete them, or move them to the Series Bible page; maybe move them to the Series Bible page, but remove references to this information from all the other articles. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 13:21, 7 July 2006 (CDT)

I'm moving this info to the Series Bible page, and will move discussion about deleting it entirely from BattlestarWiki to there. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 12:18, 19 July 2006 (CDT)

About the Jihad Badge

Very nice. What's the arabic text inside the text bubble? Is it "jihad?" Those badges really contribute to the overall look of the wiki, so kudos to those that add/augment them. --Spencerian 11:37, 22 May 2006 (CDT)

Props go to Mercifull. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 12:18, 22 May 2006 (CDT)

Yeah its the arabic for jihad :P --Mercifull 12:31, 22 May 2006 (CDT)

(grumble) well you all know what I'd say on the subject, but compliments to Mercifull for his efforts/skillz :) --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 12:34, 22 May 2006 (CDT)

Font Size in References List

Shane write:

If you use this method, please make sure the <references/> tag is flanked like so: <div style="font-size:85%"><references/></div>

I believe that this font size can be controlled in the stylesheet, which would be a better choice than encoding the style information on a per-page basis. --April Arcus 13:06, 3 June 2006 (CDT)

I'm creating it in my CSS sheet for the new style but until then it is not active. class = "ref" --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 13:19, 3 June 2006 (CDT)

It doesn't need a class. Just make all reference tags be 85%. If you wish it, I'll post the appropriate CSS rule here. I'm just having a mental block at the moment. --Day ^{(Talk - Admin)} 19:53, 28 June 2006 (CDT)

Acceptable Sources

God, what a disappointment. Everybody has been saying, Read the guide on acceptable sources, read the guide on acceptable sources, and now I have and it turns out this site is just a conduit for official pronouncements from the producers and annointed BSG sources. There is an enormous universe of sources out there and many of them are reliable and acceptable without amounting to spoon-feeding from the producers of the show. What about TV Guide? I noticed it does not conform to acceptable-source criteria, yet I would hesitate to dub them unreliable and relegate them to being unusable as a source. I guess I don't understand what people are doing here, and what this site is trying to be. --Elach 17:39, 14 July 2006 (CDT)

Not all intermediate sources are discounted. Just anonymous information. If TV Guide has a information from the BSG crew. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 17:54, 14 July 2006 (CDT)

Elach, I grant you that most of our sources are going to be official ones, since most of the work thus far has been regarding the fictional part of Battlestar Galactica. Also, the reason why they are official is because we are to document honest facts about the show, because we've had issues with people posting wild rumors on the Wiki.

Of course, one of Battlestar Wiki's (correctable) downfalls is in information pertaining to the cast and crew of BSG. The "behind the scenes" stuff that a publication like Entertainment Weekly, Rolling Stone or TV Guide would document. Obviously, a different set of criteria for sources will be needed to tackle the biographies of cast and crew, and therefore I definitely encourage discussion of what sources we should use in this regard. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 18:08, 14 July 2006 (CDT)

Ref Tags

Another line tot he <ref> usage....

<ref> tags can be used if you need to explain something^[1] that might need further explanation, but it doesn't belong with the main article text.

↑ See Colonial One for a perfect example use of this technique.

--Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 09:57, 25 July 2006 (CDT)

Citing Battlestar Galactica: The Resistance

Can we agree that The Resistance (i.e. [[Battlestar Galactica: The Resistance|The Resistance]]) is acceptable? Battlestar Galactica: The Resistance is quite excessively long and the "Battlestar Galactica: " prefix adds nothing. The staff seem to view it as some kind of supernumary episode, anyway; treating it as one seems neater. --CalculatinAvatar^(C-T) 00:35, 7 September 2006 (CDT)

Concur. Shorter is better. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 00:47, 7 September 2006 (CDT)

This is fine. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 06:53, 7 September 2006 (CDT)

As long as we disambig sufficiently from Caprica Resistance or the episode, we're good on that. --Spencerian 10:41, 7 September 2006 (CDT)

Clause on Derived Content

One thing many we veteran contributors here have taken for granted is the allowance for plausible speculation and logical deduction, which I will group into a classification I'll call "Derived Content." I'd like to add a clause the specifically defines what allowable speculation is and how to cite it. Here's my proposed addition.

"Battlestar Wiki is an encyclopedia on works of fiction. By that nature, the characters, technology, events and other items in these works of fiction are not fully explained or defined. Because of this, contributors are allowed to add material that helps in adding intriguing interpretation and explanation into an article's content that is based on logical or actual events, characters, and objects from official sources.

"The first method in adding derived content is the logical, plausible speculation approach. This method fill in the gaps of data more on character or plot direction than cited behavior or technical explanation. When done correctly, plausible speculations add "color" and insight to the article, as well as defining the article's content for readers who may not have realized a significance to the subjects presented in the article.

"Plausible speculation occurs when official sources on the subject are sparse, but substantially important events and results occur in the official sources that logical possibilities can be generated. Plausible speculations are highly fluid and subject to extreme editing as new official information occurs. Plausible explanations also lend themselves best to character behaviors and motivations.

"One significant example of an article that uses a great deal of plausible speculation is the article on Cylon agent speculation and Case Orange. For contributors of Original Series content, plausible speculation is all that can be drawn upon on since the Original Series and its spinoff have long ceased production, and there are very few official resources to consult or research.

"Similar to plausible speculations is the logical deduction approach. The logical deduction differs from plausible speculation in that much more information is available from official content and sources to derive strongly supported article content, despite the fact that the subject matter per se is not discussed in any one source, but over a series of sources. Logical deductions usually lend themselves best to explanations of technology, terminology or procedure, with technology that has been illustrated, although not fully explained.

"The articles on Computers, Galactica (RDM), FTL, DRADIS and Science in the Re-imagined Series are good examples where logical deduction from sources gives greater insight and detail on a topic without outlandish, fanciful and unsourced content.

"The requirement in using either plausible speculation or logical deduction is that all contributors must cite credible sources that support their speculation."

--Comments??? --Spencerian 15:42, 11 September 2006 (CDT)

It looks good to me. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 11:15, 12 September 2006 (CDT)

No problems here... --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 11:29, 12 September 2006 (CDT)

So say we all. --Steelviper 12:28, 13 September 2006 (CDT)

Excellent! Some of this content may fit in with NVOP or Tutorial Topics. --FrankieG 12:40, 13 September 2006 (CDT)

Good deal. I will add this to an appropriate section in the policy. Good idea, FrankieG. We should summarize or cross ref some of all in Standards and Conventions to remind newbies that, unlike Wikipedia, we glean information. --Spencerian 12:28, 14 September 2006 (CDT)

WebCite

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I have found the answer to one of our perennial citation problems: WebCite. This free service will archive a web page and allow its retrieval by later readers and researchers. This may help us make Link Rot a thing of the past. Opinions? --April Arcus 06:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sounds intriguing for sourced Internet material that could fly away, such as newspaper articles, interviews and the like. The cost seems good, too. --Spencerian 18:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Definitely agree. However, we can always archive the pages ourselves by making PDFs of such pages and storing them in our own repository for later use... Perhaps even on the BW Media wiki. Of course, the only issue that immediately comes to mind is one of copyright... In any event, I'll e-mail the people at WebCite to see whether or not we classify as an organization in their eyes. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Battlestar Pegasus} 18:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Obviously, I have not received a reply. This had completely slipped my mind until I was reading this talk page. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Battlestar Pegasus} 18:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

New citation standard

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Time to roll the dice, ladies and gentlemen! It's sortkey all over again! :) Seriously, though, I'm all for it, and the best part about this kind of change is the necessity for someone or another to hit basically every article on the wiki, which only results in improvement. See you in the trenches! JubalHarshaw 04:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

[1] See Colonial One for a perfect example use of this technique.

[1]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-== Citation Consistency ==
+{{archive-header
+| archivenumber = 1
+| number = 1
+| start = September 29th, 2005
+| end = April 9th, 2006
+| items = {{archive-item|1|Citation Consistency}} {{archive-item|1|Request for name change}} {{archive-item|1|BSG: The Magazine}} {{archive-item|1|Citation Format}} {{archive-item|1|Character Ages}} {{archive-item|1|Railguns}} {{archive-item|1|Twelve Lords of Kobol}} {{archive-item|1|Magazine Content}} {{archive-item|1|To Do}} {{archive-item|1|BSG Books}} {{archive-item|end=Y|1|Sources namespace}}
+|}}
+{{archive-header
+| archivenumber = 2
+| number = 2
+| start = April 19th, 2006
+| end = May 9th, 2006
+| items = {{archive-item|2|Koenigrules / Hollywood North Report}} {{archive-item|2|On anonymous sources}} {{archive-item|end=Y|2|The Rumor Vote}}
+|}}
-"Zoic" is a name that sounds like what Shaggy from "Scooby Doo" would make when surprised, I think.
+== Expunge List ==
+Is there any central list of articles that need to be "expunged" per the new source policy? One example I found on Citation Jihad mission list:
+* [[Battlestar Wiki:Citation Jihad#Characters with Non-Canon First Names|The case of "Joyce" Hadrian]]
+I wasn't 100% sure that the "Joyce" bit needed to be pulled, but I thought I'd note it so somebody more confident of the application of the rules might smite it. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 12:23, 10 May 2006 (CDT)
+:It's been listed for months, and nobody's offered a source. We can probably smite it. --[[User:April Arcus|April Arcus]] 12:32, 10 May 2006 (CDT)
+::So it sounds like this is more of one of those "shoot on sight" situations rather than the elaborate recon, paint it with a laser, and drop a laser-guided "smart bomb" on it type of operations. So there won't be a "articles with anonymous/unofficial sources" categories or anything, as (hopefully) it would quickly be rendered obsolete? --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 12:40, 10 May 2006 (CDT)
+:::Well, as you're aware, I like to extend new contributors the benefit of the doubt. So "shoot on sight" isn't quite right - it might still be useful to keep a section of this page for tracking dubious submissions. --[[User:April Arcus|April Arcus]] 12:45, 10 May 2006 (CDT)
+::::Concur. While I did go through and outright delete the episode pages that contained "info" from unofficial sources, there may be things that slip through here are there. I'm not opposed to having a list kept here, or even at the Quorum for such things. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 12:59, 10 May 2006 (CDT)
-Despite being the special effects company for the series, I wonder how much of their information still holds weight. I noticed that Peter gave neither negative or positive weight to this source. As we go through pages, two issues are going to crop up, of which one may need to move to the Standards page.
+==SkyOne Bios==
+:''In response to the canonicity of the names Evelyn Adama and Dreilide Thrace, Merv wrote on [[Talk:Arts and Literature of the Twelve Colonies]]:''
-* Consistent and useful '''visual''' separation and identification of TOS and RDM information and characters. I find the mingling of TOS and RDM data in the same article confusing and lengthens an article unnecessarily. More germane to this project, it will also keep RDM and TOS stats from cohabitating and confusing the citation process.
+I don't know if we should [include them]:  A) SkyOne isn't a definative source B) most importantly, '''This SkyOne information was *taken down*'''.  It no longer exists online.  Maybe they took it down....because it was no longer "correct"?  I've pointed out in several character bios, notably [[Sharon Valerii (Galactica copy)|Galactica-Sharon]], that information from SkyOne's old bio stuff has in fact been ''contradicted'' several times by new information.
-* We need to cite official sources for TOS information on the project page, keeping in mind this wiki is for both series. There are surely more TOS fan sites than RDM, and things like games, fan fiction and the like over the years have surely diluted what is official and not.
-* The level of detail or a standard of detail on technical pages needs some kind of governor. At which point is something being reasonable in description (such as ''Galactica's'' rail guns) or is embellishment or technobabble that just gives fan service (like "''Galactica'' uses a BFG-3244 Rail Gun with Strapless Attachment")? I'd be more strict on this info than any other since tech is tech and such "facts" should not be different from what is seen on screen.
-I think color coding article titles to identify TOS and RDM pages (rather than using "TOS" and "RDM") may be better on the eye. [[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 11:05, 29 September 2005 (EDT)
+You are right:  I was unaware that that was the ''sole'' source of William Adama's mother's name (his father's name is engraved on the lighter), but if SkyOne is indeed the sole source of this info I'm going to slap a proposal for deletion on "Evelyn Adama".  We really shouldn't use it if it's not from Scifi, and was actually ''removed''.  --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]])</sup> 18:33, 21 May 2006 (CDT)
-:I intended Zoic to fall under point 3, for "crew" - ie, of roughly the same reliability as that interview where Lorena Gale talked about how Elosha used to do "a lot of drugs". --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 11:21, 29 September 2005 (EDT)
+:A few points:
+:#SkyOne and SciFi were co-equal partners in funding the first season. Any information from SkyOne is going to be just as accurate or innacurate as any information from SciFi, so we shouldn't employ a double standard.
+:#You are correct that SkyOne's bios have been contradicted from time to time, as has some of SciFi's material. Our current policy is to defer to aired information, but to permit the use of other sources where no conflict exists. Do you object to this?
+:#Although some portions have been discredited, other parts of the SkyOne bios have been born out by laters events - particularly, Thrace's father as a musician. It seems likely that the bios originated with information from the series bible, or at least benefited from the input of the writing staff - that is to say, they may not just be corporate fan fiction, but seem to have at least some reference value.
+:--[[User:April Arcus|April Arcus]] 18:58, 21 May 2006 (CDT)
-::I believe the actual word is spelled thus: ZOIKS! Caps are not optional. ;) --[[User:Day|Day]] 01:21, 10 October 2005 (EDT)
+::Oh I don't think there are corporate fan fiction, I just think it's based on extremely early material which might not even be from the series bible (and even the series bible has been contradicted when new stories required it).  We might *note* within the William Adama article that "Mother: Evelyn" (clickable reference number leading to bottom of page)--->source, SkyOne season 1 bio; not necessarily canonical.  ---->But my point is, I don't think it justifies an article.  And I also don't think Starbuck's father's tentative name should be used a lot, just as a trivia note on the Starbuck article.  It's like the Miniseries novelization thing:  we got hung up on that name the author made up for her, Natasi, as a matter of convenience, until it came to the point that it was apparent that no one else really called her that.  My point being, we use a term of convenience, we just reinforce it.  No, I don't think SkyOne's info is entirely accurate, as it was taken down.  --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]])</sup> 20:21, 21 May 2006 (CDT)
+::Sky One actually invested a lot of money into the first series of BSG, it even aired in the UK before it did in the US. I dont think you can completely rule out anyhting Sky One says as a source. --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] 03:05, 22 May 2006 (CDT)
-==Request for name change==
+:::I still feel that all of this old SkyOne information, which no longer exists online, should be removed.  It's not a matter of "Scifi.com was innacurrate on points just as Skyone was"--->while Scifi.com has a few problems, the SkyOne bios are ''filled'' with innacuracies.  They don't match many things from the show.  A few things were vaguely similar but that's not enough to validate the other information.  As I said before:  no one has this information anywhere else anymore, we're the only one's keeping it alive and in so doing we're effectively making BattlestarWiki a primary source, contrary to our mission.  --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]])</sup> 11:05, 20 June 2006 (CDT)
-I am uncomfortable with the use of the term "Jihad".  I would rather we use the term "Crusade", or perhaps "Inquisition"; I think "Inquisition" is best (i.e. Spanish Inquisition [no one suspects the Inquisition!] b/c it's rooting out unsourced information). --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 13 October, 2005
+:::::No Shane, you misunderstand:  it's not that this is SkyOne or Skiffy, it's that the page was taken down:  these articles no longer exist online at SkyOne.  When I went to check (months ago) they weren't there, and someone told me there WERE there but were taken down.  Far from a "blacklisting", it's information that's no longer ''extant''.  --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]])</sup> 11:48, 20 June 2006 (CDT)
-:Striving for accuracy certainly has better overtones than any use of "crusade", and "inquisition" has draconian connotations. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:11, 13 October 2005 (EDT)
+:::: Just by clarity, wouldn't this be a clear "blacklist" of an official site? --[[User:Shane|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]])</sup> 11:43, 20 June 2006 (CDT)
+::::: As far as I can tell the SkyOne bios are gone from Skyone (I could be wrong.). I think that Merv is only talking about them. In that case, I think that the SkyOne Bios info should be deleted. The only caveat is that the same incorrect info may crop back up in the the future. If the info is  somewhere and shown in error, then it may save work in the future having to make corrects. Make the section can be condensed down to just the "errors." Sorry, got to rambling. --[[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] 11:51, 20 June 2006 (CDT)
-:: I, uh, don't get Peter's post. Does that means he agrees or doesn't? Anyway, I'm fine with Jihad because it implies a religeous devotion and a fanaticism that I think could be, sarcastically, applied to the purpose of this project. However, I'm also fine with Inquisition because it implies a religeous devotion and a fanaticism that I think... You can see where I'm going with this, no? Also, the Spanish Inquisition sketch is my favorite Monty Python sketch in the history of Monty Python's being viewed by me. And I'd love for my comments on changing citation errors (if I ever see any, because I'm bad at seeing them) to be "Our chief weapon is Fear. Fear and surprise. Our TWO chief weapons are fear, surprise and a fanatical devotion to citation. Ah. Our THREE chief weapons are: Fear, surprise, a--" You get the idea.
+::::::What are the old URLs? --[[User:Shane|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]])</sup> 11:51, 20 June 2006 (CDT)
-:: I find it interesting that the name and the two proposed substitutes are all tied to religeon? We could have a Citation Rampage. Or a Citation Mosh Pit. Heh. Maybe we should be the Ministry of Citation. I always liked ministries. We would then address each other as "Minister Day" and "Minister Farago", etc. Or maybe one of you can come up with a more [[Wikipedia:Nineteen Eighty-Four|Orwellian]] name. That would be cool. --[[User:Day|Day]] 01:52, 13 October 2005 (EDT)
+:::::::I don't even know:  these articles are nowhere to be found on SkyOne.  Someone copied them before they were removed, then posted them here later.  By the time it was brought to my attention, the URL's were already gone.  --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]])</sup> 12:05, 20 June 2006 (CDT)
-:::To clarify: I like Citation Jihad. I came up with it, after all... --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 02:08, 13 October 2005 (EDT)
+::::::::With that, I'm more for removing these bios, as they are now just as unsourced as the Zoic information on "other" battlestars like ''Galactica.'' With the series and its characters sufficiently matured, I find little use for these bios; we know far more about them from aired than unaired data, and this stuff can no longer be verified and sometimes conflicts. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 12:10, 20 June 2006 (CDT)
-:::: "Jihad", in this context, does indeed present - shall we say - disconcerting ramifications for those of us who are not Christian. While humurous to most of us (I hate to splash cold water) the casual use of such a revered term amongst a potential audience of Islamic adherrants is a wee bit less than delicate... especially in light of the suspicion many perfectly native or naturalized citizens of Mid-Eastern descent faced immediately subsequent to 9/11... and the suspicion they currently face every time they reenter the U.S.
+:::::::::Please refer to our previous discussion at [[Talk:Laura_Roslin#Source_for_SkyOne.3F]], which contains a link to the best original source currently available. --[[User:April Arcus|April Arcus]] 13:32, 20 June 2006 (CDT)
-:::: While rather fascinating that we should find ourselves encountering a problem delt with in more artfull ways in our favorite television program, it is nevertheless significant (dare I say important) that we handle this question of naming with a sense of diplomacy. --[[User:Watcher|Watcher]] 04:12, 13 October 2005 (EDT)
-:::::I was unsettled--albeit briefly--with the name initially, but I'm not into political correctness. "Jihad" is correct in definition. Currently, however, some take the word with the same emotional charge as Muslims would hear "Crusade," since, essentially in the context of past conflicts between Christians and Muslins at war, both signify a religious purge. In any case, the term sites a religious note that might sour some.
-:::::But before you knock Peter for his choice, consider our subject matter: "Battlestar Galactica" is  a morality play in the tradition of the original Star Trek series, which addresses in allegory the Muslim/Judeo-Christian issue present through current terrorism against the West as well as the Israel/Palestine conflict by using the Humano-Cylon/Human and God/Lords of Kobol issue. If nothing else, the use of the term "Jihad" in its purest form is actually appropriate and striking so for this Wiki. Don't let the Al Qaeda terrorists or other extremists make you afraid of a word when in fact, it is THEY that slur it from its true meaning. Peter has always shown a concise use of words that has little to no ambiguity--I should know since he frequently slices my edits to their essence when I use too many words. I'll back up Peter on this one. [[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 12:43, 13 October 2005 (EDT)
+::::::::::If that's the best source, let's expunge the information. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]]<sup>([[Special:Contributions/CalculatinAvatar|C]]-[[User talk:CalculatinAvatar|T]])</sup> 13:45, 20 June 2006 (CDT)
-::::::Taking these points into account, I would greatly prefer "Inquisition" over "Jihad" or "Crusade".  -- Ricimer, October 14, 2005
+:::::::::::I recall seeing the information at Sky One, but I understand why you think personal testimony is flimsy here. --[[User:April Arcus|April Arcus]] 15:48, 20 June 2006 (CDT)
-:::::::Good point. And very nicely said I might add. --[[User:Watcher|Watcher]] 13:10, 13 October 2005 (EDT)
+::::::::::::This brings up a interesting question. What to do when an official source goes away? --[[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] 16:25, 20 June 2006 (CDT)
-:::::::: I hope you don't mind, Watcher, I indented your previous post one more. Anyway, I like Johad fine. I actually find it kind of refreshing to use it for something that's ''not'' violent. I'm not Muslim, so I can't speak to that. However, as an American I don't feel, I dunno, threatened by the name, or anything. When I first saw it, it gave me pause, but that pause was me thinking, "Whew. Someone's probably gonna throw a fit about that one." --[[User:Day|Day]] 14:13, 13 October 2005 (EDT)
+:::::: I disagree with storing the information to blacklist it. Anything added without source should go, so it'd be redundant, and, more importantly, it might lead to the deletion of canon material because it was mentioned by a non-canon source before. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]]<sup>([[Special:Contributions/CalculatinAvatar|C]]-[[User talk:CalculatinAvatar|T]])</sup> 13:45, 20 June 2006 (CDT)
-:::::::::Well I'm sorry but I do and I have.  What's the consensus on this?  --Ricimer, October 13, 2005
+::::::: I was just playing devil's advocate that was the only reason I could come up to keep. Is a vote necessary? Seems like the existing policy covers it to me and consensus is clear. --[[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] 14:56, 20 June 2006 (CDT)
-::::::::::Not a problem Day. I think there might have been an unintentional slip during one of the edits (notice the time/date stamps) but I seem to constantly screw this detail up anyway. Feel free. I may read as insufferably serious but I assure you that's not the case. --[[User:Watcher|Watcher]] 16:50, 13 October 2005 (EDT)
+In regards to the above comments, we could always use [http://web.archive.org The Wayback Machine] to see if a cached version of the pages in question still exist. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 16:49, 20 June 2006 (CDT)
+:That's why I was wondering about the URL's --[[User:Shane|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]])</sup> 17:18, 20 June 2006 (CDT)
+::After some intense searching for URL's, a possiblity that I can up with is that these bios' may have came from SkyActive, a SkyOne related interactive service that no longer exists. I found one reference where someone had typed them up off the service and posted them.  --[[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] 18:50, 20 June 2006 (CDT)
+:::Ah yes i remember that. After each episode you could press the [[wikipedia:Red Button (Digital Television)|red button]] to get information on the episode and various series "facts" --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] 19:18, 20 June 2006 (CDT)
-::::::::::: Good deal, Watcher. Anyway... I was about to make a post about not wanting anyone to feel threatened by this project, but I find I have to revise that. I don't want ''members'' of the project to feel threatened by the name. I hope people who don't cite sources are scared witless of us. ;) Anyway, as much as I like using Jihad, I tend to like to not offend reasonable people, so I'd be okay with a change, I guess. --[[User:Day|Day]] 17:21, 13 October 2005 (EDT)
+We need to find out the final verdict on this, instead of delaying and getting behind on it.  --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]])</sup> 21:15, 28 June 2006 (CDT)
-:::::::::::: A note on nesting - if Watcher was replying to Spencerian, not Ricimer, it should be indented to the level of Spencerian's comment + 1, not Ricimer's + 1. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 18:42, 13 October 2005 (EDT)
+: I concur, Merv. I say, since we can no longer corroborate it, we have to toss it. How useful are they now, anyway? --[[User:Day|Day]] <sup>([[User talk:Day|Talk]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard|Admin]])</sup> 14:40, 29 June 2006 (CDT)
-::::::::::::: Ah. Good to know. I shall endeavour to remember this. --[[User:Day|Day]] 22:47, 13 October 2005 (EDT)
+===Deletion===
+I saw that Steelviper just deleted [[Sources:Sky One Profile of William Adama]]. I don't think this discussion reached a consensus to do this, but I wouldn't object if SV wanted to open a straw poll. --[[User:April Arcus|April Arcus]] 14:22, 28 June 2006 (CDT)
+:Actually, I deleted the "Sources" article, based not on this discussion (which, I admit, I hadn't been following that closely), but more on the individual instance of not having a source for that particular bio. The "Sources" article was almost an orphan in reality anyway, as I had just created it in order to save space on Spence's demo of a more concise William Adama. The "actual" main space reference was located in "William Adama" itself. I'll happily restore it, though, if that's what people want. I didn't mean to step on the toes of the mujahadin. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 14:31, 28 June 2006 (CDT)
+::Well, I see your point, but I think the first thing to do is figure out a coherent policy toward the purported SkyOne info. After that, we can apply a consistant policy to all six bios and any pages citing them. I wonder if Bradley Thompson could help us confirm them in the absence of any wayback archives? --[[User:April Arcus|April Arcus]] 14:34, 28 June 2006 (CDT)
+:::Now that the bio info is back in the William Adama article... do we need the "Sources" article? It seems like we should either transclude the "Sources" article or link to it from William Adama (with just a quick summary blurb on the main article) or dump the "Sources" article and let William Adama serve as the source. I'm just looking to get rid of the redundancy at this point. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 14:38, 28 June 2006 (CDT)
-===Votes===
+From [[Battlestar Wiki:Official Communiques#SkyOne Biography Canonicity]], I think that these are "unofficial" enough that we should either delete them, or move them to the Series Bible page; maybe move them to the Series Bible page, but remove references to this information from all the other articles.  --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]])</sup> 13:21, 7 July 2006 (CDT)
-We need to come to some kind of consensus, I think. So, first, is to change or not change. If we decide to change, then we can quibble over what to change to. Place your name under the appropriate heading.
-====No Change====
+I'm moving this info to the Series Bible page, and will move discussion about deleting it entirely from BattlestarWiki to there.  --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]])</sup> 12:18, 19 July 2006 (CDT)
-# --[[User:Day|Day]] 06:14, 23 October 2005 (EDT)
-# --Not afraid of words when used properly. [[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 13:56, 23 October 2005 (EDT)
-# --Name doesn't bother me. [[User:Talos|Talos]] 19:46, 23 October 2005 (EDT)
-# --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 00:51, 24 October 2005 (EDT)
-# --Ditto Spencerian. Let's not fear words when used properly. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 21:28, 27 October 2005 (EDT)
-====Change====
+== About the Jihad Badge ==
-# Reluctantly --[[User:Watcher|Watcher]] 06:30, 23 October 2005 (EDT)
-# Wholeheartedly --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 09:46, 23 October 2005 (EDT)
-# Normally I don't care about words, but I have to admit, that in today's world, some words have become too negatively charged. --[[User:Cp.hayes|cp.hayes]] 14:30, 23 October 2005 (EDT)
-# Wholeheartedly --[[User:Lone Odessan|Lone Odessan]] 19:36, 23 October 2005 (EDT)
-== BSG: The Magazine ==
-I saw [http://www.titanmagazines.com/titanmag/app;jsessionid=57DACB1E3C47F38A718593747C30F921?service=direct/1/HomeUS/$NavigationBar.$DirectLink$2&sp=S8 this] on the news stand at Fry's and thought it was worth picking up an issue to see what was in it. I've so far read a whole of two pages, so I don't know much about it, except that it has an article on Pyramid that was interesting. Does anyone else know anything about this magazine? How reliable is it? I'm going to edit the Pyramid article with some things that are revealed about the rules. How should I cite this, exactly? I'm gonna go with page numbers and title for now. --[[User:Day|Day]] 17:24, 13 October 2005 (EDT)
+Very nice. What's the arabic text inside the text bubble? Is it "jihad?" Those badges really contribute to the overall look of the wiki, so kudos to those that add/augment them. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 11:37, 22 May 2006 (CDT)
-:Given that we haven't had much about the RDM show in print, I'd carefully use it to compare to the canonical stuff we have. If things are consistent, I'd say it's a reliable source since I strongly suspect that USA/Universal may have to sign off on its content. [[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 17:58, 13 October 2005 (EDT)
+:Props go to [[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]]. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]])</sup> 12:18, 22 May 2006 (CDT)
-::I say we put it on level 4, (sci-fi and skyone websites), provisionally.  --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 18:41, 13 October 2005 (EDT)
+::Yeah its the arabic for jihad :P --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] 12:31, 22 May 2006 (CDT)
+:::(grumble) well you all know what I'd say on the subject, but compliments to Mercifull for his efforts/skillz :) --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]])</sup> 12:34, 22 May 2006 (CDT)
-::: Correction. The title is ''Battlestar Galactica, the Official Magazine'' even thought the words are not in that order on the cover. And, I must say, the thing was really clumsily edited. There are missing periods, 'and' for 'a', 'their' for 'they're', tense mixing, Obvious typos. Yech. --[[User:Day|Day]] 01:04, 14 October 2005 (EDT)
+==Font Size in References List==
+Shane write:
+:''If you use this method, please make sure the <nowiki><references/></nowiki> tag is flanked like so: <nowiki><div style="font-size:85%"><references/></div></nowiki>''
+I believe that this font size can be controlled in the stylesheet, which would be a better choice than encoding the style information on a per-page basis. --[[User:April Arcus|April Arcus]] 13:06, 3 June 2006 (CDT)
+::I'm creating it in my CSS sheet for the new style but until then it is not active. <tt>class = "ref"</tt> --[[User:Shane|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]])</sup> 13:19, 3 June 2006 (CDT)
-==Citation Format==
+::: It doesn't ''need'' a class. Just make all reference tags be 85%. If you wish it, I'll post the appropriate CSS rule here. I'm just having a mental block at the moment. --[[User:Day|Day]] <sup>([[User talk:Day|Talk]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard|Admin]])</sup> 19:53, 28 June 2006 (CDT)
-Also, we should choose a citation format and stick with it. Opinions? MLA, APA, Chicago? --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 18:41, 13 October 2005 (EDT)
-:Damn it, Peter. I knew you were a student. You're going to force me to dig up a book or stand with the kids at the college bookstore, aren't you? :) [[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 22:50, 13 October 2005 (EDT)
-:: Are you kidding? I just graduated and never once bought a book on citation. All that can be [http://honolulu.hawaii.edu/legacylib/mlahcc.html found] [http://www.liu.edu/cwis/cwp/library/workshop/citmla.htm on] [[Wikipedia:APA style|the]] [http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/research/r_mla.html net]. I've only ever used MLA style before, however, I'd be willing, given the nature of web pages, to use something that just had footnotes with numbering. There was some tool Wikipedia has for this that I read about, but I don't remember much about it except that it seemed cool. --[[User:Day|Day]] 00:06, 14 October 2005 (EDT)
-:::I would find MLA with numbered footnotes ideal. For "personal communication", we would do well to follow [[User:MASON|MASON]]'s example of including them in subpages, such as [[Mercury class battlestar/Sources]] (That should be linked to from the main article text, however.) --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 00:16, 14 October 2005 (EDT)
-:::: Joe also mentioned possibly that we should scan things. What kinds of things? And, I assume those should go on a Sources page, too, neh? I think for whatever's on the sources page, we could do the foot note like this: (3) Personal communication (''or whatever relevant info''). See ''link to Sources page''. I also think Sources pages should have a link back. WHat do y'all think? --[[User:Day|Day]] 00:25, 14 October 2005 (EDT)
+==Acceptable Sources==
-:::::I Agree. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:14, 14 October 2005 (EDT)
+God, what a disappointment. Everybody has been saying, Read the guide on acceptable sources, read the guide on acceptable sources, and now I have and it turns out this site is just a conduit for official pronouncements from the producers and annointed BSG sources. There is an enormous universe of sources out there and many of them are reliable and acceptable without amounting to spoon-feeding from the producers of the show. What about ''TV Guide''? I noticed it does not conform to acceptable-source criteria, yet I would hesitate to dub them unreliable and relegate them to being unusable as a source. I guess I don't understand what people are doing here, and what this site is trying to be. --[[User:Elach|Elach]] 17:39, 14 July 2006 (CDT)
-:::::By scans, I mean scans of publication articles and so forth.  Scans should not be of the whole article but a snippet of the applicable text that was cited (enough to qualify as fair use).  Also, as for linking the sources subpage, I created a template, {{tl|source}} that can be placed next to the applicable information.  The template automatically links to the Source subpage. (Format: Article title/Sources.) Thoughts? -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 14:16, 14 October 2005 (EDT)
+:Not all intermediate sources are discounted. Just anonymous information. If TV Guide has a information from the BSG crew. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]])</sup> 17:54, 14 July 2006 (CDT)
-:::::: How does that work, then, Joe? The syntax, I mean? --[[User:Day|Day]] 03:29, 18 October 2005 (EDT)
+::Elach, I grant you that most of our sources are going to be official ones, since most of the work thus far has been regarding the fictional part of ''Battlestar Galactica''. Also, the reason why they are ''official'' is because we are to document honest facts about the show, because we've had issues with people posting wild rumors on the Wiki.
+:: Of course, one of Battlestar Wiki's (correctable) downfalls is in information pertaining to the cast and crew of BSG. The "behind the scenes" stuff that a publication like ''Entertainment Weekly'', ''Rolling Stone'' or ''TV Guide'' would document. Obviously, a different set of criteria for sources will be needed to tackle the biographies of cast and crew, and therefore I definitely encourage discussion of what sources we should use in this regard. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 18:08, 14 July 2006 (CDT)
-==Character Ages==
+== Ref Tags ==
-Character ages across the site appear to be based on the age of the actors who play them. This would normally be reasonable, but the Timeline of BSG does not match the progress of time in the real world - the characters have aged at most three and a half months in the same time that their actors have aged two years. Since we can't infer ages more accurately than a casual visitor could be glancing at a character photograph, I would rather this information simply not be included. Opinions? --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 20:45, 15 October 2005 (EDT)
-: I concur. --[[User:Day|Day]] 12:57, 17 October 2005 (EDT)
+Another line tot he <nowiki><ref></nowiki> usage....
+:''<nowiki><ref></nowiki> tags can be used if you need to explain something<ref>See [[Colonial One]] for a perfect example use of this technique.</ref> that might need further explanation, but it doesn't belong with the main article text.''
-: Another thought: Ages are hard to pin down... I mean, we might learn that it is someones XXth birthday in some future episode. Wonderful. However, it's somewhat meaningless. An "Age" attribute in the template needs to be "as of" some date. Right now we use the Holocost as that date, but we're no longer exactly certain how far ago that was. So, if it's Cally's, say, 25th or whatever birthday in the episode after next... how old was she at the Holocost? 24, or so, I guess, but you see my point? I think the best solution, and perhaps this should be brought up on the characters project page, too, is to make the "Age" attribute on the template hide-able and then blank everyone's age out unless we know explicitly a number. I also think we should say it thusly: Age: 23 (as of [[Scattered]]) --[[User:Day|Day]] 02:50, 27 October 2005 (EDT)
+<references/>
-==Railguns==
+--[[User:Shane|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]])</sup> 09:57, 25 July 2006 (CDT)
-From the ''Official Magazine'' issue #1, p. 60: "Every Battlestar class warship has 24 primary railgun turrets as well as over 500 point defense turrets at its disposal." I don't have access to a scanner to prove that it says that, so you'll have to take my word on it. I'm not saying this is indisputable proof, but that it's maybe more than fanon, anyway. --[[User:Day|Day]] 02:46, 18 October 2005 (EDT)
-:The magazine is wrong. Based on on-screen evidence, the large turrets on ''Galactica'' cannot be [[railgun]]s unless we drastically redefine the very idea. This certainly trumps throwaway technobabble in a fan magazine. IMO, the only thing that should give us pause is if a character on the show specifically refers to them as railguns, which hasn't happened yet. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 02:51, 18 October 2005 (EDT)
-:: Okay. I'll buy that. I bet that what's actually going on here is that someone somewhere who makes these desicions doesn't, actually, know what the heck they're talking about. I mean... What're we to do if someone busts out a ray gun and says, "This shoots a red lazer!" and then, *zap*, it's green? --[[User:Day|Day]] 03:27, 18 October 2005 (EDT)
+== Citing [[Battlestar Galactica: The Resistance]] ==
-::: Oops. Ya did it now. Let's just hope TNS' writers don't become overwhelmed by the details and go the way of Space 1999. --[[User:Watcher|Watcher]] 04:24, 18 October 2005 (EDT)
+Can we agree that [[Battlestar Galactica: The Resistance|The Resistance]] (i.e. <code><nowiki>[[Battlestar Galactica: The Resistance|The Resistance]]</nowiki></code>) is acceptable? [[Battlestar Galactica: The Resistance]] is quite excessively long and the "Battlestar Galactica: " prefix adds nothing. The staff seem to view it as some kind of supernumary episode, anyway; treating it as one seems neater. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]]<sup>([[Special:Contributions/CalculatinAvatar|C]]-[[User talk:CalculatinAvatar|T]])</sup> 00:35, 7 September 2006 (CDT)
+:Concur. Shorter is better. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]])</sup> 00:47, 7 September 2006 (CDT)
+:This is fine. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 06:53, 7 September 2006 (CDT)
+:As long as we disambig sufficiently from [[Caprica Resistance]] or the episode, we're good on that. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 10:41, 7 September 2006 (CDT)
-==Twelve Lords of Kobol==
+== Clause on Derived Content ==
-Ricimer stated in his edit summary: "It has been stated numerous times that there are 12 Lords of Kobol".
-This statement is true if by "numerous times" you mean "never". I've been over all the episode transcripts and found nothing. On this page, of all places, you should provide a source before deleting a comment. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 19:54, 11 November 2005 (EST)
+One thing many we veteran contributors here have taken for granted is the allowance for plausible speculation and logical deduction, which I will group into a classification I'll call "Derived Content." I'd like to add a clause the specifically defines what allowable speculation is and how to cite it. Here's my proposed addition.
-==Magazine Content==
+:"Battlestar Wiki is an encyclopedia on works of fiction. By that nature, the characters, technology, events and other items in these works of fiction are not fully explained or defined. Because of this, contributors are allowed to add material that helps in adding intriguing interpretation and explanation into an article's content that is based on logical or actual events, characters, and objects from official sources.
-Ltcrashdown, thank you for your informative additions to [[Saul Tigh]] and other articles. However, for them to stand, we need to do two things:
-#Make certain that we are ''not'' quoting the magazine word-for-word, or that where we feel compelled to do so, we set the text off and cite it directly.
-#In general, any information from the magazine needs to be cited as well. To do this, we need to know some of the publication information, including:
-#*The publication's name
-#*The article's author
-#*The article's title
-#*Date and issue number
-#*Pages referenced
-Thanks for helping to keep Battlestar Wiki accurate. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 22:50, 1 February 2006 (EST)
-:Where do I place this information in the area where I quote it in Tigh's article? --Ltcrashdown 23:05, 1 February 2006 (EST)
+:"The first method in adding derived content is the logical, ''plausible speculation'' approach. This method fill in the gaps of data more on character or plot direction than cited behavior or technical explanation. When done correctly, plausible speculations add "color" and insight to the article, as well as defining the article's content for readers who may not have realized a significance to the subjects presented in the article.
-::I will be happy to show you the proper format if you can provide the above information. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 23:15, 1 February 2006 (EST)
+:"Plausible speculation occurs when official sources on the subject are sparse, but substantially important events and results occur in the official sources that logical possibilities can be generated. Plausible speculations are highly fluid and subject to extreme editing as new official information occurs. '''Plausible explanations also lend themselves best to character behaviors and motivations.'''
-:::Here is everything I referenced from the Magazine in the articles I altered. --Ltcrashdown 23:25, 1 February 2006 (EST)
+:"One significant example of an article that uses a great deal of plausible speculation is the article on [[Cylon agent speculation]] and [[Case Orange]]. For contributors of [[Original Series]] content, plausible speculation is all that can be drawn upon on since the Original Series and its [[Galactica 1980|spinoff]] have long ceased production, and there are very few official resources to consult or research.
-:::Publication: Battlestar Gallactica the Official Magazine #3
-:::Feb/Mar 2006
-:::The Tigh info, Rising Star refence to Picon, and Battlestar Athena came from the article named 'Cylon Intelligence Report: Personnel File: Saul Tigh, Page 62'
-:::The Alert Fighters and Colonial Day information came from the article named 'Cylon Intelligence Report: Galactica Glossary page 60'
-:::The Colors for the Colonies comes from 'Encyclopedia Galactica pages 50-55'.  I also compared it to information in Battlestar Galactica The Official Companion.
-:::There were no authors listed for any of the articles.
-::::Can you post quotes here containing the relevant details? --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 23:29, 1 February 2006 (EST)
+:"Similar to plausible speculations is the ''logical deduction'' approach. The logical deduction differs from plausible speculation in that much more information is available from official content and sources to derive strongly supported article content, despite the fact that the subject matter ''per se'' is not discussed in any one source, but over a series of sources. '''Logical deductions usually lend themselves best to explanations of technology, terminology or procedure, with technology that has been illustrated, although not fully explained.'''
-:::::I am familiar with the magazine, and feel that we should *provisionally* allow information from the "encyclopedia" stuff at the end, but I also *suspect* that they make that stuff up without input from RDM.  I don't know.  It is the "Official" magazine.  Should be on the same level as info from Scifi.com (which has been known to be wrong, etc.)  HOWEVER, things that are straightfoward "interviews" which are a simple transcript of an interview; hard to argue that (like when actors reveal insights about their character based on stuff from the series bible we didn't know before).  --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 23:35, 1 February 2006 (EST)
+:"The articles on [[Computers]], [[Galactica (RDM)]], [[FTL]], [[DRADIS]] and [[Science in the Re-imagined Series]] are good examples where logical deduction from sources gives greater insight and detail on a topic without outlandish, fanciful and unsourced content.
-::::::Actually, I just saw that the magazine claims that Colonial Day is a biannual holiday; First, where would they get that idea? Second, Ron D. Moore ''stated'' in his blog that it is "not a biannual holiday; it's an annual holiday held every year".  I wonder why someone got the idea to ask that.  Etc.  So it's now known to be not entirely accurate.  --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 23:40, 1 February 2006 (EST)
+:"The requirement in using either plausible speculation or logical deduction is that all contributors '''must''' cite credible sources that support their speculation."
+--Comments??? --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 15:42, 11 September 2006 (CDT)
-Okay, I'll try to post everything I found word-for-word. --Ltcrashdown 23:43, 1 February 2006 (EST)
+: It looks good to me. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 11:15, 12 September 2006 (CDT)
+: No problems here... --[[User:Shane|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]])</sup> 11:29, 12 September 2006 (CDT)
+: So say we all. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 12:28, 13 September 2006 (CDT)
+: Excellent! Some of this content may fit in with NVOP or Tutorial Topics. --[[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] 12:40, 13 September 2006 (CDT)
+::Good deal. I will add this to an appropriate section in the policy. Good idea, FrankieG.  We should summarize or cross ref some of all in Standards and Conventions to remind newbies that, unlike Wikipedia, we glean information. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 12:28, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
-'Colony: Aerelon' is a listing under the personnel file indicating his planet of origin.
+==WebCite==
+I have found the answer to one of our perennial citation problems: [http://www.webcitation.org/ WebCite]. This free service will archive a web page and allow its retrieval by later readers and researchers. This may help us make Link Rot a thing of the past. Opinions? --[[User:April Arcus|April Arcus]] 06:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
+:Sounds intriguing for sourced Internet material that could fly away, such as newspaper articles, interviews and the like. The cost seems good, too. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 18:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
+:Definitely agree. However, we can always archive the pages ourselves by making PDFs of such pages and storing them in our own repository for later use... Perhaps even on the BW Media wiki. Of course, the only issue that immediately comes to mind is one of copyright... In any event, I'll e-mail the people at WebCite to see whether or not we classify as an organization in their eyes. -- [[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> 18:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
+:: Obviously, I have not received a reply. This had completely slipped my mind until I was reading this talk page. -- [[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> 18:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
-Tigh's history specificaly says, 'Saul Tigh entered the fleet as a deckhand but rose through the ranks and was a CPO (Chief Petty Officer) by the time the First Cylon War broke out.' Ltaer it reads, 'Tigh joined the Colonial Officer Candidate School and was reassigned as a Viper pilot, something he excelled in, earning a string of medals in his post aboard the Battlestar Athena.' This is the only refence to the Battlestar Athena.
+== New citation standard ==
-Tigh's post-War history is given with 'Adama reenlisted with the service and Tigh spent two years drinking before Adama pulled strings to get him back into service. Saul Tigh was straightening his life out when he met his wife Ellen, who he courted and married within two months. Ellen did not take well to military life, and her repeated infidelities drove him back to drink. Ellen and Saul separated shortly before the Cylon attack.'
+Time to [[Special:Random|roll the dice]], ladies and gentlemen! It's sortkey all over again! :) Seriously, though, I'm all for it, and the best part about this kind of change is the necessity for someone or another to hit basically every article on the wiki, which only results in improvement. See you in the trenches! [[User:JubalHarshaw|JubalHarshaw]] 04:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
-The Rising Star info was taken from later in teh article with the sentence, 'Three weeks after the Cylon attack Tigh's wife was discovered on the Rising Star, a carrier from Picon.'
-The definitions are:
-'Colonial Day - An biannual holiday which celebrates the signing of the Articles of Colonization.'
-'Alert Fighters - A rotating group of Colonial Vipers which are constantly ready for immediate launch. Their function is to act as support for the Combat Air Patrol.
-The colonial colors are just images, so there's nothing to type, but it corresponds with the same colors in the Official Battlestar Companion.
-:Excellent, thank you.
-:The MLA citation format for a magazine article with no author is as follows:
-::"Title of Article." <u>Title of Magazine</u>. Date: Pages.
-:So, to use the Saul Tigh article as an example:
-::"Cylon Intelligence Report: Personnel File: Saul Tigh." <u>Battlestar Galactica: The Official Magazine</u>. Feb./Mar. 2006: 62.
-:Introduce a footnote in the main body text using the <nowiki>{{note}}</nowiki> and <nowiki>{{note_label}}</nowiki> tags, and place the corresponding citation in a <nowiki>==Sources==</nowiki> header after <nowiki>#{{ref}}</nowiki> and/or <nowiki>{{ref_label}}</nowiki> as appropriate. I will restore your edits to the Saul Tigh article and cite them, to give you an idea. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 00:00, 2 February 2006 (EST)
-::You should also restore the 'Twelve Colonies' changes since all i did there was add Saul to the Aerelon natives and correctly match the Colors with their colonies. --Ltcrashdown 00:02, 2 February 2006 (EST)
-::::Maybe he was busted down from CPO during the second year of the war.  Or maybe as a Chief Petty Officer, he once served as a Gunner's Mate (though this is a bit of a stretch, I admit). --Ltcrashdown 00:22, 2 February 2006 (EST)
-:::This information, however, is contradicted by the deleted scenes from "Valley of Darkness" where Tigh says that in the second year of the War, he was a "Petty Officer...gunner's mate" and not ''already'' a Chief Petty Officer when the war broke out.--[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 00:14, 2 February 2006 (EST)
-:::::"Let's cut through it, shall we?" The magazine is obviously compiled by people who are worse fanboys than ''we'' are, and lack our zeal for accuracy. I mean, if they can't even spell "Gemenon" properly, I'm not really inclined to give them much credence. Their information should be taken with a very large grain of salt, when we take it at all. Frankly, I'm a little worried they're going to start using ''us'' as a source.
-:::::(Dear lord, I'm using sci-fi quotes out of context and Ricimer's talking in a civil tone of voice. It's like we've ''merged''.) --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 00:30, 2 February 2006 (EST)
-Realize that it my ''business'' to know (of course you know, etc etc). Enough Batman-villian-esque theatrics. ***I only have the first issue, and need to read the other issues. Frankly, it's a combination of *REEALLY* good and really *BAD* material. Basically, they've got 5 or so articles that are worthwhile; but they're exclusive, plus they also give out concept art unavailble elsewhere. Long story short, *I would pay money for the few good articles in it*, but the problem is they want to "pad out" the magazine to get a certain length (and I'm going, "I would pay the same amount of money if you didn't pad it, because the other stuff doesn't add much") I mean, the first one has this *really annoying* '''LITERALLY''' Fanfic letter "from Starbuck" describing an air-combat manuever she pulled off in a Viper (in an article about Vipers). Now, let me remind everyone: ***It's a good magazine and has many good articles.  It's just that some of the articles are obviously "filler".  Thus, as I said, apart from the flat-out Interviews with cast members or articles written by like David Eick, Garry Hurtzel, production team members, etc. should be held under great critical skepticism. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 00:45, 2 February 2006 (EST)
-: This whole thread has been a great read. Very interesting. I have the first issue of this magazine. I sourced it for the [[Pyramid (RDM)]] article some. I remember thinking mostly as you do, Ricimer: Some great stuff, the rest ''horrid''. They're good for interviews, artwork and not much else. The first issue had an interesting thing at the end that seems to be a synopsis of an interview (if I remmeber right) with the head costume person, which I keep meaning to reread and use to add some real-life info to [[Uniform]]. I've also been looking for the other issues in the place where I got the first one, but I can't find it. I a little wary of subscribing to the thing... It just seems like there's a line being crossed there. *wink* --[[User:Day|Day]] 06:06, 2 February 2006 (EST)
-==To Do==
-*Deprecate citation templates in favor of [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cite/Cite.php#_ref-NYT_1 <ref> tags]. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 00:44, 2 February 2006 (EST)
-==BSG Books==
-There was recently a novelization for the battlestar galactica mini-series.  I was going to get a copy and add information from it to the wikipedia.  Does anyone else think this should be done, assuming the novelization yields any new details (i.e. ships, pilots, etc.) --Ltcrashdown 00:14, 4 February 2006 (EST)
-: Its come up before. That's where, I think, we got the name Natasi for one of [[Number Six]]'s copies. We're kind of wary of it, but I think there's further discussion on Six's Talk page. --[[User:Day|Day]] 02:51, 4 February 2006 (EST)
-::I'm going to post my point by point analysis of it in a matter of hours.  It is, on the whole, quite poorly written, and I don't think he had any official stuff to go on, just making it up.  Regardless, per "Memory Alpha" template, it deserves it's own page which I will comment more on, but we should not base beliefs on it.  --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 02:57, 4 February 2006 (EST)
-== Sources namespace ==
-Just to let everyone know, Sources have their own namespace (i.e. [[Sources:Pegasus (RDM)]]).  This avoids having to use the subpage suggestion I had earlier proposed. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 13:11, 9 April 2006 (CDT)
-==Koenigrules / Hollywood North Report==
-"Koenigrules" (KR) is the alias of Jim Iaccino, a popular reporter of BSG spoilers, whose reports are often cited and reposted by other sources. [http://lvpodcasts.autopodcaster.com/download.php?filename=Subject_2_Discussion_04_11_2006.mp3/Subject_2_Discussion_04_11_2006.mp3 Recent comments] made on the "[http://www.subject2discussion.com/ Subject 2 Discussion]" segment of the "[http://www.lvrocks.com/ LV Rocks]" radio program (transcribed at [[Sources:Subject 2 Discussion, 11 April 2006]]) raised the possibility that KR is merely re-reporting publically available information, and does not appear to be a credible primary source.
-[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] investigated this possibility, and posted his findings to [[Talk:Precipice#Question about Koenigrules]]. [[User:Peter Farago|I]] raised the possibility of instating a policy against citing KR's reports as credible sources on Battlestar Wiki, which was seconded by [[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]].
-Consequently, I am opening a formal vote here on the matter. Please review [[Sources:Subject 2 Discussion, 11 April 2006]], its putative [http://www.nowcasting.com/sides/Episodic/BATTLESTAR%20GALACTICA/301%20Occupation/Selloi_Dedona_4pgs.pdf source material], and The Merovingian's comments on [[Talk:Precipice#Question about Koenigrules]] prior to casting your vote, and feel free to raise any questions below. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:18, 20 April 2006 (CDT)
-'''Update:''' Koenigrules has responded to a number of our concerns via e-mail. You can read my correspondence with him at [[Sources:Correspondence with Jim Iaccino]]. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 12:36, 23 April 2006 (CDT)
-'''Update 2:''' I will be transcribing KR's appearance on tonight's Subject 2 Discussion either later tonight or early tomorrow, and offer my considered opinion afterwards. I may request that the current "blacklist" vote be closed and recast as a more general discussion on the appropriateness of anonymous sources at battlestar wiki. Rebuttals will be welcome. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 19:05, 25 April 2006 (CDT)
-'''Update 3:''' KR's latest appearance has been transcribed to [[Sources:Subject 2 Discussion, 25 April 2006]]. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 12:45, 26 April 2006 (CDT)
-'''Update 4:''' My final opinion is available at [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Citation Jihad#From Peter]]. I have changed my vote to "Oppose" and have supported Joe's suggestion of closing this vote and moving the topic of discussion to the appropriateness of anonymous sources. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 13:25, 26 April 2006 (CDT)
-===Blacklist Vote===
-====In favor of a policy against citing KR as a primary source====
-*<del>[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]])</sup> 23:36, 19 April 2006 (CDT) - I feel like this guy betrayed us.  And it's getting worse; 4-5 news sites report things he says as fact; he is not helping at all.  Dogger said: "''He often fails to differentiate what he is reporting from his own speculation, an oversight compounded by the fact that his speculation is hampered by a lack of attention to detail.''"-->He put that more clearly than I could.  Way to go Dogger.  :)</del>
-*<del>[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] 01:11, 20 April 2006 (CDT) If he originates nothing, we lose nothing by not citing him.</del>
-*<strike>[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 07:34, 20 April 2006 (CDT) - We do NOT claim to be a primary source here, and everything that is stated as fact should be citable elsewhere. Our sources are  therefore our foundation, so they should be held to a high standard.</strike>
-#[[User:Talos|Talos]] 10:30, 20 April 2006 (CDT)
-#[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 11:21, 20 April 2006 (CDT)
-#[[User:Grafix|Grafix]] 03:16, 21 April 2006 (CDT) I'm against the publication of anything except the facts.
-# [[User:Mazzy|Mazzy]] 17:12, 21 April 2006 (CDT)  This is site is a reference, it would be misleading to publish anything other than citable information.
-#[[User:AerynSun44|AerynSun44]] 17:15, 21 April 2006 (CDT) I must concur. Too much flotsam.
-#*[[User:Dogger|Dogger]] 20:38, 21 April 2006 (CDT) <del>I've never heard KR 'reveal' anything that I haven't already seen from another source. I have always seen him as just somebody who reads the same things I read and then repeats them in another venue, but with an extra helping of certainty.</del> He often fails to differentiate what he is reporting from his own speculation, an oversight compounded by the fact that his speculation is hampered by a lack of attention to detail. <del>Perhaps what he does might have some value as a 'digest' of what is being talked about, but I don't see why anyone but the most naive listener would consider him as a primary source.</del>
-#*I have struck out parts of my comments that seem to have been proven wrong by some of the history presented in the thread on Skiffy. However, I cannot in good conscience change my vote because of the simple fact that I don't think that anyone claiming an anonymous source should really be considered a primary source, even if that source is genuine. Perhaps 'blacklist' is the wrong word. I simply see this as a test case for what is the appropriate kind of evidence that should be cited as authoritative. Singling out KR is probably unfair, but that doesn't change what I honestly think to be not an appropriate primary source for a wiki. If there were a vote to have a policy against citing any anonymous source as a primary source, then I would be in favour of that too. I consider this vote to be just an example of what I think should be an overall principle. For example, if KR were to name his source, then I don't see any reason not to consider citing that information. The problem I have is not with KR's honesty in particular -- it's with the idea of citing a source without giving the reader the benefit of evaluating its reliability, and that includes anonymity as well as the mixing of facts with speculation.--[[User:Dogger|Dogger]] 19:36, 23 April 2006 (CDT)
-#*<del>[[User:Gouge|Frankie Gouge]] 02:20, 22 April 2006 (EDT) Credibility is too hard to earn to risk needlessly. Plenty of other sites to get speculative spoilers. </del>
-#[[User:Bowersj8|Bowersj8]] 14:31, 22 April 2006 (EDT)
-#[[User:Shane|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]])</sup> 22:40, 25 April 2006 (CDT) I listened enough to the radio show. (All Annoymous Sources too...)
-====Opposed====
-#[[User:Kuralyov|Kuralyov]] 22:21, 23 April 2006 (CDT)
-#[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 13:41, 26 April 2006 (CDT) Individual blacklisting is not appropriate for this case.
-#[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] 13:49, 26 April 2006 (CDT) It seems he does originate things after all.
-#[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 14:09, 26 April 2006 (CDT) Let's not single out KR on the issue, but we do need to address the issue of anonymous sources (see below).
-#[[User:Adedward|Adedward]] 23:28, 28 April 2006 (CDT)
-====Abstain====
-#[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] 07:33, 23 April 2006 (CDT) Changed to abstain because I don't feel I know enough about this issue to choose either way.
-#[[User:Quig|Quig]] 10:09, 23 April 2006 (CDT)
-#[[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 08:53, 20 April 2006 (CDT) After reading the unfortunate thread on the Skiffy board and the dialgoue established between Peter and KR, I will abstain until I determine whether or not this whole thing was worth the heartache for all concerned.
-#[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]])</sup> 15:39, 23 April 2006 (CDT)As I've offered to give KR benefit of the doubt in compromise if he'd just be more mindful that at times when he was speculating or when he was giving spoilers was confusing, I'm switching my vote to abstain.
-#[[User:Gouge|Frankie Gouge]] 16:05, 24 April 2006 (EDT)
-#[[User:Noneofyourbusiness|Noneofyourbusiness]] 20:58, 26 April 2006 (EST)
-===Motion by The Merovingian===
-While KoenigRules and several of his collleagues insist that he does indeed have access to some sort of spoilers, all of them still will not confirm the veracity of these sources.  Seeing as this is what they would do both if they were REAL and if they were NOT REAL sources, we thus arrive at an impasse.  Therefore, I want to find some civil compromise over this:  I'm a Uniter, not a Divider, and if we start turning on each other Rick Berman's new crackpot scheme to make Star Trek XI: Starfleet Academy will eat us BSG fans alive.  <br>'''Proposal''':  If KoenigRules promises to be more careful in the future in his interviews, to *'''make it clear'''* when he is giving away '''direct information from his source(s)''', and when he is making a '''speculation''' ''based'' on either this purported source material, ''or'' just his own personal '''opinion''', we will reverse our decision to hold a vote to reject him as a reliable source.  <br> For example, if KoenigRules says in an interview "I think Baltar is a Cylon", he should really make it clear that that is just his opinion and not supported by any spoiler source information that he might have, as news sites might miscontrue his comments and lead to a world of trouble.  However, the matter of HollyWoodNorthReport itself, which has come under frequent attack from many sites for improperly forgetting to use citations when they source material from other fansites, should be considered a separate matter.
-I hope we can all agree to this.
-:I don't think this subissue needs a vote. Koenigrules has indicated to me that he'll be able to reply here by monday. If he can adequately address the concerns we've raised, then naturally, the above discussion will be re-evaluated in light of that. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 02:21, 23 April 2006 (CDT)
-====Support====
-#--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]])</sup> 22:48, 22 April 2006 (CDT)
-====Oppose====
-== On anonymous sources ==
-In lieu of all this, I am thinking of further clarifying the section defining what sources we should and should not use on the wiki.  In particular, sources that are anonymous should not be referenced (this is fairly common sense, but isn't explicitly stated0. Also, for reference, we should probably add a definitive list of sources, grouped by categories from "uses anonymous source" to "trusted primary sources".  (We have a list such as this already on the Citation page, though it could be better defined in my mind. ) Thoughts? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 19:49, 23 April 2006 (CDT)
-:I agree (though I don't know how to set that up using wiki code).--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]])</sup> 20:46, 23 April 2006 (CDT)
-::We would set it up just like the "Image tagging policy" page. The only question is how do we define what is legit and what is not? If we consider how big the internet and how vast information can be found, anyone who reports on infomration at a regular basis could be considered legit, as long as the information is true. (i.e. Gateworld vs. HNR). This would also not benifit the little people. So I am not really a fan of this, but in light of the problem with spoilers vs. fact, this might be needed. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]])</sup> 21:02, 23 April 2006 (CDT)
-:::Well it now seems likely that KR does indeed have a source:  he's been heavily involved since the Miniseries, and was on the original nuBSG fan page.  What threw me in all of this is that that site **no longer exists**, so when I was trying to fact check his credibility it didn't come up.  He still cannot reveal his source without compromising it, so I think Joe's "annonymous source" spoiler tag idea might be best.  --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]])</sup> 21:41, 23 April 2006 (CDT)
-::::I think anytime something can be better defined, it is a plus to the accuracy of the project. =)-- [[User:Mazzy|Mazzy]] 12:02, 24 April 2006 (CDT)
-Everyone I think this has been resolved after our contact with KoenigRules, and we should bring down the site notice on the Main Page that there's a vote going on regarding KR, as I think things have been resolved already and this would only confuse newcomers.  KR seems entirely on the level to me now, and we should put this past and move on to other work.  --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]])</sup> 22:40, 24 April 2006 (CDT)
-:Absolutely not. This remains an important issue. Tomorrow night, I will transcribe his appearance on S2D and offer my final opinion. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:13, 25 April 2006 (CDT)
-===From Peter===
-Alright then. Having spoken with KR and listened to his latest podcast, the following is now clear to me:
-*KR is not merely re-reporting information gleaned from other sources available to the public. The overlap between the information in the Selloi Dedona casting side and the report made on the 11th is remarkable, but the information he supplied on the 25th cannot be accounted for in light of other publicly available material.
-*KR asserts that he has a single, anonymous source for all his reports.
-*KR has complied with every request we've made of him, clearly separating his personal speculation from information supplied by his source.
-It is therefore my opinion that he has done everything we can reasonably expect him to do, considering the anonymity of his source. I therefore believe that singling him out for blacklisting is inappropriate. I am changing my opinion on the above vote to "oppose", and I support Joe's desire to let the matter drop and refocus the discussion on the nature of our sources.
-The [[Battlestar Wiki:Spoiler Policy|Spoiler Policy]], arrived at by grudging compromise last autumn, makes the following statement:
-<blockquote>All spoiler information must have a source, whether in the form of a [[Wikipedia:URL|URL]] or a printed publication text, on the ''talk page'' of the spoilerific article.  For printed publication text, a copy must be scanned and uploaded to the wiki in the form of a [[Wikipedia:JPG|JPG]] or [[Wikipedia:PNG|PNG]], and posted on the talk page of the article containing the spoilerific content.</blockquote>
-Naturally, this arises from a desire for Battlestar Wiki to be a reliable source. The nature of a wiki allows anybody to contribute news and information, which must be checked by a policy such as this. It would obviously be unacceptable to allow anybody to pass off ungrounded speculation as reported fact, bolstered in reputation by dint of its presence on the wiki.
-However, the very nature of spoiler reporting renders impossible the goal of maintaining perfect accuracy while reporting on episodes not scheduled to air for months to come. Even the very best sources we can hope to come by - legitimate casting sides and call sheets, for example - may refer to script elements that end up being cut from the final broadcast. Set reports may refer to scenes which are filmed but not included, or be reported out of context.
-This is an inevitability to which we must resign ourselves if we intend to report on spoilers at all. However, it can be mitigated by requiring attribution to individual reporters. The real problem with KR's reports is the anonymity of his source. Casting sides and call sheets which arrive in their original format are unlikely to be forged, and set reports substantiated by photographic evidence, but all we have to go on with regard to KR is his good reputation.
-I find it awkward to judge submissions here based on such a nebulous concept as the reporter's reputation, which is why my personal preference leans to reporting only information which can be backed up by tangible evidence or sourced to individuals involved in production. However, it should be acknowledged that by excluding anonymous reports such as KR's, we will be depriving ourselves of a prolific source of timely and apparently reasonably accurate information.
-Because I consider this a real and important dilemma, I want to solicit comment form other users on the issue of anonymous sources. Particularly relevant questions:
-*Should they be allowed at all?
-*If so, should we discriminate between different sources on the basis of reputation?
-*If so, how should reputation be determined, and who should be responsible for determining it?
---[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 13:22, 26 April 2006 (CDT)
-: '''(Intro)''' First of all, I listened to the podcast live. There was quite a number of people in the chat channel inclduing myself. Along with KR, was merv, Ribby, and a few other people that were in the orginal flame war on SciFi.com.
-: '''(Question 1)''' anonymous Spoliers are the worest. First of all, they are considered [[Wikipedia:Hearsay]] which means the context of the spolier or information can change and exaserations can be made by the reporter. '''(From the Podcast on Question #1)''' When I listened last night he said he took through notes on what his source said, to make sure he kept the information straight. Usually I have pretty good ears, but I didn't hear any paper's or him lean away from the phone.
-: '''(Question 2)''' If gateworld to report this as a spolier, and like this podcast OR link even us as the source with US sourceing it as an annoymous source, [http://gateworld.net/galactica/news/2006/04/secondandthirdepisodetitle.shtml Gateworld] did not list this current radio cast as the source for them knowning the new title. This page was posted a good few hours before the radio show. They have yet to cite or deem these current spoliers on the website.
-: '''(Question 3)''' I can not answer this, because I think offical sites, offical news orginzations, are the best place. If this came from Katte's website, or Apollo's then I would be OMG, but it didn't. It came from a source that can not even verify if the spoliers are correct. Teasers are '''offical spoliers''', you can choose to watch them or not, but they are offical. RDM podcasts are offical, RDM blog. etc... etc..
-: '''(Conclustion)''' If he was to go on the show stright till october, we would know all of Season 3 BEFORE it happened. For this, I voted to not allow KR be a source, even if another "anonymous" soruce, and only allow '''offical spoliers''' to be reported. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]])</sup> 13:45, 26 April 2006 (CDT)
-:I'm not that keen on using anonymous sources at all. I don't think it's realistic for us to be everything to everyone, and would rather see us strive to be the concise, accurate, organized repository of BSG knowledge (and let the new sites and forums handle the spoiler info). I could see maybe having a "news" pages with links to such spoilers, but actually putting content into the article that we have no way of verifying (and could prove to be false) seems like a stretch.
-:Maybe there's a way for us to be able to "report" the information, without compromising our accuracy. We could, for example, limit spoiler postings to spoiler news areas (which nobody updates anyway), and obvious spoiler pages (like the next season, and upcoming episodes). People reading those pages '''expect''' spoiler information, as there is no canon information available yet. The important thing to keep in mind would be making sure that once the page passes out of the realm of spoilers into to normal article space (by having an airdate, etc), all normal citation requirements must apply. It is a double standard, but there's a clearly demarcated line that could be observed/enforced, and if the spoilers end up being false it only ends up affecting the temporal accuracy of that particular spoiler page, and not the long-term accuracy of the page once aired. I would still prefer not seeing any anonymous sources in the regular article space, though, as the maintenance issues involved would potentially leave false spoiler information in place after the event occurs.
-:Also, I'd like to see the above vote closed (since the context since it's opening has changed quite dramatically). I'd rather not change my vote, I'd vote that way again given the same information, but "re-voting" based on the new information seems a bit of the Monday-morning quarterbacking ("I'd a double bagged it.")--[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 13:47, 26 April 2006 (CDT)
-::Spoilers are already quarantined into the episode guide pages; quarantining anonymous spoilers somewhere else seems excessive to me. I think we just need to decide one way or another. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 13:55, 26 April 2006 (CDT)
-:::I didn't realize that was the case. I think I was remembering character pages like [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/en/index.php?title=Helena_Cain&oldid=23108 this] that had spoiler boxes, and it's hard to edit them without running into the spoilers. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 14:00, 26 April 2006 (CDT)
-::::I'm mistaken. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 14:02, 26 April 2006 (CDT)
-Having read everything you guys said and listening to the last show, here's my thoughts:
-I entirely agree with the three points about KR Peter said; he met our requests and was careful about saying "I guess" "that's what I think", etc., and he incorporated it into his interview smoothly (didn't stop in his tracks and say "everyone be warned this is just what I think, websites shouldn't etc etc etc) which was good for him, not affecting his interview drastically.  I think that worked out well for everyone.  Nextly, I am actually now quite possitive that '''he does indeed have some sort of spoiler source''', the exact nature of which is of course unknown, but still it is now clear to me that he isn't just basing all of his information on casting sides and public information, but has a source no one else does.  The real problem, then, has changed:  how do we address spoilers which are based on a reporter who has a ''reputation'' of providing on the whole accurate spoilers ''in the past'', and uses an ''anonymous source'' which nonetheless seems to be a "real" source?
-:"Should they be allowed at all? If so, should we discriminate between different sources on the basis of reputation? If so, how should reputation be determined, and who should be responsible for determining it?"
-This was an important set of questions Peter, and I think that a new subsection on our sources policy page should be openned up to discuss these questions raised in more detail.  '''Further, I agree entirely with you and Joe's feelings that this vote here should be "wiped", singling out a single person would be inappropriate, that we should "let the matter drop and refocus the discussion on the nature of our sources."'''
-KR's sources thus seem to ''generally'' be real and he's not just making things up, but that raises all sorts of questions; as said above, these sources tend to be based on early ideas or scripts and are subject to change even if the reports on them were truthfully saying what the production team ''thought'' they were going to do, or might be scenes that even get filmed, but ultimately deleted and possibly becoming deleted scenes that are in fact contradicted by scenes that appear in the final episode rendering them totally non-canonical; i.e. what if someone was on the set and saw the alternate cut of "Pegasus" where Boomer ''actually'' gets raped, then left the set and did not see that ''another'' take of this was filmed where she gets saved at the last minute?...this spoiler source would honestly report that they saw a scene where Boomer gets raped...however even though this scene was filmed, another scene was filmed which completely contradicted it and it is no longer real (as opposed to like, the deleted scenes such as when Roslin gets "Lest We Forget" from Billy in "33", which it appears CAN be thought of as more or less canonical and RDM said was only deleted for time reasons).  So, the thing we really need to do is open '''another, more generic discussion on what to do about sources and spoilers'''.
-My thoughts on the subject:  Generally, we should keep spoiler information confined to news and season 3 pages; by it's very nature the season 3 page is right now filled with spoilers, and people going there are looking for them, and can see the spoiler sign on top.  Also, *individual episode entries* for episodes that have not aired yet, such as "Occupation", are obviously going to contain spoilers and people go there to look for them, although even then *gigantic* spoilers should be in a highlighted spoiler-text box so you have to highlight ''specific'' plot information to see it.  Once and a while there will be some exceptions where we ''can'' keep spoiler info on a character page, i.e. {{spoiltext|Number Three where Lucy Lawless says she'll be a character like God, and do this for a MAJOR 10 episode arc.}}
-We should be very sparing about allowing spoiler info like this off of the upcoming season and news pages.  ***Still, '''I think our current spoiler warning policy is more or less okay in turns of placement'''.
-What we need to really focus on is tagging our sources.
-{{spoiltext|I mean, Lucy Lawless said the above thing in ''an interview'' and thus it is okay to add to a page.  However, KR's recent comments about what Starbuck is doing in various season 3 episodes should '''definately not be added to the Starbuck page until they are confirmed by production photos''', but still will appear on season 3, news, and season 3 episode pages. }}
-Ultimately, I think we actually have to run KoenigRules' spoilers:  Gateworld, Galaticastation, and most other Battlestar Galactica news sites all tend to run them within a few days.  We'd be seen as less reliable about our info if someone could get better info from somewhere else.  ***I think the best idea would be to '''run these annonymous source spoilers only *after* an official news site like Gateworld or Galacticastation has already run them''', like the day after they run them, we report that "Gateworld reported this story, it came from a radio interview which gave news from an anonymous source".
-Sort of like the "Citation needed" tag, which appears in the article but as a little super-script?  I think we need a new one of those which says "Information from an anonymous source, not confirmed" or something to that effect.  Well those are just my early thoughts on the subject.  Bottom line:  ESSENTIALLY, KR does seem to have a real spoiler source, though he won't reveal it.  We need to figure out how to handle anonymous sources like this.  We should remove this vote as new information we've gotten has shed more light on the matter, and we should refocus this onto a more ''generic'' "who do we handle anonymous spoilers" discussion on our sources page.  I agree with Farago and SteelViper.  --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]])</sup> 14:49, 26 April 2006 (CDT)
-:Maybe you should wrap the actual spoiler content in the above in spoiler tags. I hadn't read some of that yet (and try to avoid it).--[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 15:04, 26 April 2006 (CDT)
-:Merv writes: ''I think that a new subsection on our sources policy page should be openned up to discuss these questions raised in more detail.''
-:The Citation Jihad ''is'' our sources policy page, and we're having that discussion right now. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 15:14, 26 April 2006 (CDT)
-::I meant a new subheading. (I will find those spoiltexts SV...)--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]])</sup> 15:19, 26 April 2006 (CDT)
-:::If we allow a spolier to be listed like this it would be moot to what we are. This is not even offical. Spoliers with cast memebers are offical. We become something we are not supposed to be. If I reported annoymously that I heard BSG Wiki was closing and it was annoymous source, it could be anyone, however int his case, Joe is the only one. So a reported would ask joe is BSG closing, or joe would see it and he would look to see who spread that rumor because the fact is not true. Just put yourself in RDM shoes. What would he say to the production staff. Please do not leak spoliers. Actors are bound by the [[Wikipedia:SAG]] contracts in which they why can't reveal sources otherwise they can be seriously fined. They do comment on the show and what their characeter does, but not the spolt details itself. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]])</sup> 15:31, 26 April 2006 (CDT)
-:::All spoilers should be sourced. If that source is anonymous, that should probably be specifically, explicitly noted, but I cannot see how it would hurt to include them if they are so marked. Each reader can then judge how much stock to put in an anonymous source individually, since it's a point on which reasonable people can differ. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] 15:53, 26 April 2006 (CDT)
-:::: If you don't mind spoiler's read the two reports. One is from The [[Season 3 (2006-07)]] page and the other is from the new discussion.
-{{spoiltext|According to Ron D. Moore's podcast of the Captain's Hand, Apollo will continue to be the Commander of the Pegasus well into Season 3.}}
-This goes totally against
-{{spoiltext|
-KR: It's not— I don't think you're going to have a Galactica spinoff
-SO: Uh oh. Well, I mean, they could've done a spinoff with the Pegasus if they'd wanted to, they could've done some other things, but I mean even that as fan fiction—
-KR: Did you say "Pegasus"?
-SO: Uh oh.
-KR: Did you say "Pegasus"? Episode 303.
-SO: Uh oh.
-KR: Pegasus is destroyed.
-SO: Oh no, you're kidding me! Who's on it when it gets destroyed?
-KR: Don't know. But it is sent— my source says it is sent on a collision course to a Cylon base ship so that the Galactica can get away.
-}}
-Goes totally against an offical spoiler. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]])</sup> 16:13, 26 April 2006 (CDT)
-:Possiblities: (1) Plans have changed since RDM made that podcast, (2) Plans have not changed, the producers feel that three episodes are enough to show Lee's ups and downs of command, (3) Keonigrules' source is flatly mistaken or (4) didn't get the details right (it's a Pegasus Viper that is sacrificed, or something like that). --[[User:Noneofyourbusiness|Noneofyourbusiness]] 20:58, 26 April 2006 (EST)
-=== From Joe ===
-Well, I've created {{tl|spoileranony}} with the following wording:
-{{spoileranony}}
-Basically, I feel that as long as we can cite a source for the rumor, we should report it as such. Care must be taken to ensure that we inform our readers that this information is rumor and speculation.  Here are the criteria I'd prefer we use:
-# As so long as it is reported on a valid news source (Gateworld, HNR, S2D), we can report it as well.
-# We must take care to indicate that these are rumors.  Therefore they may or may not be accurate. (Templates such as {{tl|spoileranony}} reflect this view.)
-# We must make sure that we are not the primary source for these rumors -- we aren't a news and rumors site. We're a reference. We summarize and scrutinized what's been reported, nothing more, nothing less. (I guess I'm repeating point 1, but I don't think I can emphasize this enough.)
-I think we may have to create a page specifically dealing with rumors, such as [[Battlestar Wiki:Rumor Policy]]. Thoughts?
-So that's what I have to say on that subject... Unless anything else comes to mind. :-) -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 16:34, 26 April 2006 (CDT)
-:Page takes a second to create... :) --[[User:Shane|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]])</sup> 16:41, 26 April 2006 (CDT)
-::{{tl|Episode List}} - needs to be updated. I posted a suggestion to split up the three seasons because spoliers and title names should be inclduded. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]])</sup> 16:46, 26 April 2006 (CDT)
-:::I agree with the three points Joe has listed here.  I'm unsure on precise implementation though but we'll be hammering that out for a while.  --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]])</sup> 16:50, 26 April 2006 (CDT)
-:First, let me address some of your points above:
-:#What the heck is a valid news source? Anyone can start a blog and be a "valid news source". This goes back to the credibility/reputation problem.
-:#If we do decide to permit anonymous spoilers, an ostentatious warning banner is the last thing we need. This is alread taken care of by the spoiler and spoiltext tags we already have. The anonymity of the source should simply be noted in the citation.
-:I'm afraid I'm still against anonymous sources. If we report anonymous spoilers, we ''must'' take into account the reputation of the poster. Since we ''cannot'' do this in an objective and non-arbitrary manner, we therefore cannot report anonymous spoilers.
-:Lastly, there is nothing that we would cover in a "Rumor" policy that we couldn't cover here. Let's not spread ourselves thin. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 19:09, 26 April 2006 (CDT)
-: "What the heck is a valid news source?" A very good question indeed.  In fact, you do raise many interesting points above and I believe we should consider very carefully whether or not we cite spoilers. I'm starting to reconsider that. Anyone else want 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> 20:19, 26 April 2006 (CDT)
-:: I dislike spoilers and only read them because it's an effective necessity to edit here; they don't add anything that wouldn't be there after the episode anyway. My opinion on anonymous sources for them (under the assumption that spoilers in general will be cited) is above. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] 20:43, 26 April 2006 (CDT)