Steelviper (talk | contribs) →Finally!: note about project scope, and visibility |
→Scientific Errors: another thought |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
::We might want to link to this page from the appropriate referenced episodes in some sort of standardized fashion in order to raise the visibility of this once it starts accumulating info. I guess likewise with the RDM version of this. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 11:51, 11 September 2006 (CDT) | ::We might want to link to this page from the appropriate referenced episodes in some sort of standardized fashion in order to raise the visibility of this once it starts accumulating info. I guess likewise with the RDM version of this. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 11:51, 11 September 2006 (CDT) | ||
:::Obviously. There are so many that it would be impossible to pinpoint every last one. I also like the idea of a standardized link leading back to the continuity errors pages for both TOS and RDM pages. Any ideas on how precisely to do this? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 12:08, 11 September 2006 (CDT) | |||
::::We could either add a link/section in the body of the episodes, or perhaps an addition to the (ever growing) episode data template would be in order? --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 12:19, 11 September 2006 (CDT) | |||
:::::Probably a link to the episode data template would be good. Then, in the body of the article, we could link to the page whenever needed? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 12:24, 11 September 2006 (CDT) | |||
== Scientific Errors == | |||
:Would this be the right place to put scientific errors from the show? [[User:Mokwella|Mokwella]] 21:36, 24 September 2006 (CDT) | |||
::Yeah, I think so. While it says "Continuity errors", "goofs" might more accurately describe everything it encompasses. Just set up a "scientific errors" header? --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 07:56, 25 September 2006 (CDT) | |||
:::After some of the editing I did in the past weeking, a discussion about [[Science in the Re-imagined Series]] being divided into subpages has started. Scientific errors may fit better in that process. Just a thought. [[Science in the Re-imagined Series]] is too long, but good stuff there don't want to delete it. --[[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] 09:01, 25 September 2006 (CDT) | |||
Latest revision as of 14:01, 25 September 2006
Finally!
A place where this link would be useful. They'd need to be verified, of course, but it at least gives some material. --Steelviper 09:11, 11 September 2006 (CDT)
- Thanks for the link! We'll have to go through it and source it thoroughly... plus there are gaffes that aren't listed on that page either! -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 11:14, 11 September 2006 (CDT)
- While perfection is ultimately the goal, I suspect that a truly complete catalog of all the gaffes in TOS might rival the size of our current DB. I think it might be how early atronomers might have felt like. You document the ones you can see (starting with the obvious ones), but you're unlikely to ever be able to say that you've got them all.
- We might want to link to this page from the appropriate referenced episodes in some sort of standardized fashion in order to raise the visibility of this once it starts accumulating info. I guess likewise with the RDM version of this. --Steelviper 11:51, 11 September 2006 (CDT)
- Obviously. There are so many that it would be impossible to pinpoint every last one. I also like the idea of a standardized link leading back to the continuity errors pages for both TOS and RDM pages. Any ideas on how precisely to do this? -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 12:08, 11 September 2006 (CDT)
- We could either add a link/section in the body of the episodes, or perhaps an addition to the (ever growing) episode data template would be in order? --Steelviper 12:19, 11 September 2006 (CDT)
- Probably a link to the episode data template would be good. Then, in the body of the article, we could link to the page whenever needed? -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 12:24, 11 September 2006 (CDT)
- We could either add a link/section in the body of the episodes, or perhaps an addition to the (ever growing) episode data template would be in order? --Steelviper 12:19, 11 September 2006 (CDT)
- Obviously. There are so many that it would be impossible to pinpoint every last one. I also like the idea of a standardized link leading back to the continuity errors pages for both TOS and RDM pages. Any ideas on how precisely to do this? -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 12:08, 11 September 2006 (CDT)
- We might want to link to this page from the appropriate referenced episodes in some sort of standardized fashion in order to raise the visibility of this once it starts accumulating info. I guess likewise with the RDM version of this. --Steelviper 11:51, 11 September 2006 (CDT)
Scientific Errors
- Would this be the right place to put scientific errors from the show? Mokwella 21:36, 24 September 2006 (CDT)
- Yeah, I think so. While it says "Continuity errors", "goofs" might more accurately describe everything it encompasses. Just set up a "scientific errors" header? --Steelviper 07:56, 25 September 2006 (CDT)
- After some of the editing I did in the past weeking, a discussion about Science in the Re-imagined Series being divided into subpages has started. Scientific errors may fit better in that process. Just a thought. Science in the Re-imagined Series is too long, but good stuff there don't want to delete it. --FrankieG 09:01, 25 September 2006 (CDT)
- Yeah, I think so. While it says "Continuity errors", "goofs" might more accurately describe everything it encompasses. Just set up a "scientific errors" header? --Steelviper 07:56, 25 September 2006 (CDT)