Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive4

Archive - Between April 25th, 2006 and December 29th, 2006

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE. This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current talk page. Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Battlestar Wiki:How to archive a talk page.) Please add new archives to Archive 05. Thank you. Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 17:34, 31 January 2007 (CST)

Battlestar Wiki should be...

...always in italics. If it happens to become bold, that is fine, but always italiced. Any comments --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 15:32, 25 April 2006 (CDT)

That strikes me as annoying, not particularly useful, and exceedingly hard to impose on the vast number of existing instances. --CalculatinAvatar 22:23, 25 April 2006 (CDT)

Concur. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 11:55, 5 May 2006 (CDT)

Is there not a word censor feature on the wiki, to perhaps change all instances of Battlestar Wiki into Battlestar Wiki? --Mercifull ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 04:16, 11 July 2006 (CDT)

Outline rules

I've mentioned this before on this page, but it's getting really annoying now. It seems so stupid to have an "Overview" section and force the TOC above it in every article. The first paragraph should be the overview or introduction section. It doesn't need a header. For example: In Greek mythology, the "Introduction" Section should just be the first paragraph. And look at Dean Stockwell, Someone has added an "Overview" section and the used _ _TOC_ _ to force the wiki to behave badly. That article should not even have a TOC! Another example: Donner, should not have an "Overview" header, but at least they didn't add a TOC. This is most obvious in episode articles like Lay Down Your Burdens, Part I. The "Overview" section should just be the first paragraph. Is this a policy? I can't seem to find it anywhere. Can someone explain why we ignore standard wiki format, standard outline rules, and common sense?

If this is talked about somewhere else, please point me there.

--Bp 10:55, 5 May 2006 (CDT)

No, it is not a policy. Merely a style choice that was never really hammered down. Now, with articles like Donner, I don't see the point of a header (which I removed). Now, on the other hand... in regards to the episode articles... the primary format was taken from The Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5, which includes the overview header. So that's where that came from. And it makes sense there, in my view. By the way, and I don't mean to sound sarcastic, but what is "standard Wiki format"? -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 12:11, 5 May 2006 (CDT)

Standard wiki style is the style that MediaWiki was designed to use. It isn't a coincidence that the TOC is added after the first paragraph by default. The overview should be an immediately available brief summary or introduction in a standard place in every article: the very first line. It is more efficient for quick browseing because it doesn't require any extra clicking or scrolling, and it makes more sense. The Dean Stockwell article is a perfect example of breaking the design by forcing the TOC to the top. What also makes it standard is it's use on Wikipedia. Not trying to be a jerk, --Bp 12:24, 5 May 2006 (CDT)

Good point. :-) What has everyone else to say about it? -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 12:59, 5 May 2006 (CDT)

I agree with Bp. It's a pity we haven't been more zealous about this. --Peter Farago 14:57, 5 May 2006 (CDT)

I agree: headers have been somewhat zealous. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 15:20, 5 May 2006 (CDT)

I'm not sure that word means what you think it means. --Peter Farago 17:06, 5 May 2006 (CDT)

Let me s'plain. My father was killed by a six-fingered man...---The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 17:08, 5 May 2006 (CDT)

It's been about a week now and it doesn't look like there is any objection, so what is the next step? Can I just start changing them? --Bp 18:55, 11 May 2006 (CDT)

I would be fine with your going ahead with the changes... except for the episode pages, as moving the overview above the TOC there appears quite disconcerting, in my view. (I've tried it, and I was adverse to it from an asthetic point of view, likely because of the Lurker's Guide.) -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 21:46, 11 May 2006 (CDT)

I agree with BP. I prefer not saying "Here's an introduction:". It's kind of like, "Can I ask you a question?" No need to introduce the introduction. Peter and I had gone through a handful of pages a long time ago and written introductions, or moved stuff up to make an intro paragraph. I think it might have been characters mostly, but I honestly can't remember. Maybe I dreamed it. Anyway, I went and played with Lay Down Your Burdens, Pt. 1 (since the link was handy) and, at least in preview mode, I think I like the overview to have no header and appear above the TOC. However, I acknowledge that others might disagree, so maybe we should have a vote, singling out Episode pages. If you're really wanting to get going on doing a lot of these edits, BP, I'd say start with non-Episode pages until we get that sorted. Lord knows there's plenty of 'em. --Day ^{(Talk - Admin)} 23:15, 24 June 2006 (CDT)

"Battle" Pages Format and Guideline Proposal

Per the Fall of New Caprica talk, the "Battle" pages do require standardization, so I propose the following qualifiers for the future.

"Guidelines for creating a "Battle" page:

• Any major military confrontation in an episode should have a Battle page.
• Battle pages are generally military conflict summaries, NOT episode summaries. Use the episode articles to summarize events and conversations not related to the Battle page's focus. Likewise, avoid the use of quotes unless it has critical importance to the page. Use narrative format as a general rule.
• The content of the article should only include battle summaries, tactics, ship movements, major decisions of key political or military characters related to the welfare of the ships, their crew or the colonists.
• Battle pages are appropriate for troop-level fighting (such as the Battle of Kobol), but focus must be kept on the relevant events and less on the general mood and actions of all characters.
• Battle pages should not include real-world Earth discussions, comparisons or contrasts. If a particular tactic or technology is used that has an Earth equivalent that deserves clarification, place that information in a relevant existing or new article and add the link to the Battle page as appropriate.
• A Battle page works best with direct military conflict (whether or not fire is exchanged between combatants), but can be adjusted for certain political events that have a serious military consequence with direct conflict potential. While the "Fall of New Caprica" event is not a battle, the change of power is in effect a "win/lose" consequence that could have grave tactical ramifications.
• Each Battle page uses a summary template. If you have difficulty in defining the content of the summary template, then it is likely that the content is inappropriate for a Battle page, and should be entered in another article.

Battlestar Wiki's "Battle" articles are based on a similar design used on Wikipedia. Two useful examples to aid contributors include Wikipedia's World War II article and the Battle of the Resurrection Ship article."

Comments on this? --Spencerian 17:58, 10 May 2006 (CDT)

I originally wrote a rather long treatise on how to handle Battle pages, towards the top of our discussion here at #11. Anyone might want to read that for my previous expounding on the subject. Anyway, my guideline for what to include was based on Wikipedia, but once again I find myself looking at Memory Alpha for their articles on the Battle of Wolf 359 or Battle of Cardassia, etc.

Here is where I must disagree: battle pages should only be made for when shots are actually exchanged. I didn't think "Galactica Vs. Pegasus" should be an article, though it got voted in it was with much contention, and sort of shows the "borderline" of the most extreme case which might be in here. But "Fall of New Caprica" should be deleted or heavily altered. It wasn't a battle at all. I like SteelViper's thoughts on the subject, that "Fall of Saigon" is an "even" in wikipedia but not a battle, so we should remove battle template boxes and such from it at the very least. Still, a lot of work needs to be done on these and I'll find time in the next few days.

Nextly, --->It looks really awkward to put the entire battle article in the present tense/active voice, and we should not do that. Look at how Memory Alpha or Wikipedia writes battle pages. It sounds very awkward, and unlike a character bio or episode guide, a battle is one finite event and really should not use this. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 19:22, 10 May 2006 (CDT)

I totally agree with Spencerian. One point, though that I want to comment on, anytime an Episode shows miltary personal consipring and uses force against any target (weather that would be Galacicia v. Peaguas). That's about it. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 20:57, 10 May 2006 (CDT)

Would you want to include the Galactica's boarding of Colonial One or the GIdeon then? I think that's a little excessive (although I agree with the inclusion of the fall of New Caprica, as I've stated above, and don't think that's seriously up for debate) --Peter Farago 22:27, 10 May 2006 (CDT)

Really excessive, there. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 22:54, 10 May 2006 (CDT)

Even I think that is "excessive". But that is not vs. a miltary target. It is civilian. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 23:29, 10 May 2006 (CDT)

I think we were confused by your use of the phrase "any target" above. --Peter Farago 00:02, 11 May 2006 (CDT)

On a side note... {{Battle Data}} is up for review. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 23:58, 11 May 2006 (CDT)

It looks good to me. --Peter Farago 03:03, 12 May 2006 (CDT)

I'm not keen on the phrase "Attacker/Defender" in there. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 06:11, 12 May 2006 (CDT)

I can understand using "attacker" and "defender" from a differentation standpoint, although it may be better to use something more generic. But how does this new template differ from the previously used template? I'm unclear why this template would be used. --Spencerian 11:17, 12 May 2006 (CDT)

Color scheme. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 11:47, 12 May 2006 (CDT)

More specifically, a central location where you could control/maintain the color sheme (and "classes" for the css) rather than having to individually update individual battle boxes each time a change needed to be made. The current pages use a "hand-made" table, rather than a template (which made sense when there weren't many battles). --Steelviper 11:59, 12 May 2006 (CDT)

Got it. --Spencerian 15:53, 13 May 2006 (CDT)

Battle Page Verb Tense

An earlier thread also appears on The Merovingian's user talk page.

If you look, Standards and Conventions for Verb Tense says that historical events are excepted: Battles are an exception, as they're not in the episode guide but written as a historical event. They have awkward flow when they're in the present tense. I like what SteelViper said a while ago: Galactica vs. Pegasus represented the 'extreme "borderline" of what constitutes such a page, but really what justifies a battle page I wrote in my treatise above at #11: shots actually have to be fired, and it has to be just more than a minor skirmish; something resulting in the loss of a viper might qualify: for example, the Skirmish over the Red Moon counts, shooting only two Raiders in "Final Cut" with no Viper loses does not, and the events of "Scar" don't count as a battle because it was low-level fighting drawn out over a month (wikipedia would never list "battle of that mission where one American pilot shot down one Japanese pilot", etc.) It kind of depends on the scale. I'm cleaning these up...--The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 19:49, 30 May 2006 (CDT)

Your interpretation is not correct, Merv. "Historical events" are flashbacks or other events that occur outside of the "start" of the aired chronological events of the show in the "present" time of the characters just before the Cylon attack. The historical range is the start of the miniseries to the end of season 2 right now. Any flashbacks of events that occur prior are indeed "historical." The flashback of Adama and Tigh's first meeting as shown in "Scattered" are historical. The events of all battles shown to date are in the "present" and are NOT historical, per the reason we use present tense in fiction and the reason for our policy. If the show were to show a battle that occurred before the series and miniseries, then that works for past tense. Many character bios also speak in past tense under the same guidelines with their flashback history. Wikipedia does what it does because it (1) has that as its policy and (2) is speaking of actual human events of the past. I don't want to even go into what Memory Alpha does (how they keep the chronological, retconned, and contradictory world of Star Trek together in a wiki is more magical than logical) except that they have their own rules. And we have ours, here, that have been discussed and established as consensus, and thus policy. Consensus does NOT expire, but can be reentertained for change at a later time--again, through consensus. You cannot change a page just because no one has talked about the idea of changing the tense. You really need to ask the group first before making such dramatic changes against the policy. --Spencerian 17:52, 4 June 2006 (CDT)

I'm revisiting these articles. I still find the "historical" writing of these articles to be distracting, but (with Merv no longer here) I'm hoping other voices will be heard on whether we should keep battle pages to past tense and not our typical present tense. I'm a bit ambivalent about it, but I also don't want to make exceptions to our present-tense policy without making it crystal clear. Merv went through all the pages not long ago to put them in past tense, with no consensus as shown in this thread. Comments? --Spencerian 12:19, 11 September 2006 (CDT)

Sure, I'll chime in here. I think that bringing the battle series of pages in line with the verb tense we've established at S&C is fine. I've always found that the battle series seemed to feel "outside" of the Wiki for some reason -- and that reason may very well be because of the verb tense issue. On another subject, I would also like to entertain the prospect of including major ground assaults as well, given that we may likely see ground asasults in the Caprica mini series and so forth. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 12:38, 11 September 2006 (CDT)

I don't think there was any major consensus against ground assaults in general gaining battle recognition, just that the "Fall of New Caprica" (as far as we've seen anyway) didn't constitute a significant battle. As for tense, I'd lean towards maintaining uniformity regarding reporting on episodic content. Otherwise you have a rule that says "always use active voice for episodic content, except on battlepages, tuesday's, and Joe's talk page (where past progressive subjunctive should be used (was being used, perhaps?)". --Steelviper 12:53, 11 September 2006 (CDT)

Concur. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 21:21, 11 September 2006 (CDT)

SV's take on it is spot-on; we seemed to have too many exceptions to in-universe articles. I won't rush into it (awaiting here for any further dissent or comment) but may redo these in a month or so. --Spencerian 07:47, 12 September 2006 (CDT)

Non-concur. That is, if you want the opinion of someone who is not an admin but a fan of military history and also a US military officer. It simply makes more sense to have battles in past! I recently made a bunch of edits to Battle of New Caprica, among them, writing the page in past tense. Not long after, I was reverted, so went back and made the tense changes to my edits and reapplied them. I can understand the allure of having all the "present" events written about in that tense, for that keeps the energy level of the descriptions greater than the general consensus of "some historical account." Battles are afforded some special level of awe in our English language, however, even those we are discussing that only occurred on Friday evenings. Writing battles, specifically, in past tense would give them the more respected "what grandpa told me" factor. True, this could be extended to political battles, Raptor rescues, and all the various things that we see on a regular basis on the show, so I do not pretend to know a clear way of delineating the limits of what would be good fodder for past tense. That, I suppose, is the greatest argument for having the standard be uniform. The reason writing battles in present tense feels so unnatural is that writing is supposed to be an organized practice. Battles, on the other hand, are inherently not organized. Giving structure--"now factor"--to battles gives them a false sense of perspective. Present tense implies that someone, somewhere on or viewing the field of battle has an holistic understanding of all that is occurring. This has not been the case since the 18th century. Witnesses or participants describing what they saw are often gruesome and/or shocking narratives, but they are rarely more encompassing than the limited breadth of their adrenaline-induced tunnel vision. Battle accounts being in past tense lends weight to the credibility of the study of what happened, that because the author has taken the time to analyze the significant actions and critical points of the battle, only then is it able to be put into a cohesive story. Putting battles, only, in past tense, would be affording them the added level of dignity that our society traditionally provides them. - Keithustus 11:25, 22 October 2006 (CDT)

Thanks, Keithustus. As you can see from this long thread, there has been sizeable discussion on the matter. My adminship just involves extra cleanup and policy management, so otherwise don't take my comments with any extra level of authority than any other contributor. A past contributor reverted the convention of present tense in the series of articles without consensus, which I returned to their current status.

Your comments are pretty eliquent and may bring new arguments against the convention use, so rather than debating the merits, let's review the notion again with comments from other contributors on these particular pages, should anyone care to comment again. For now, as all other battle pages follow the current convention, let's avoid revert wars and leave things as they are until consensus deems otherwise. A week may be sufficient for this, and you can drop a note on the Battlestar Wiki:Wikipedian Quorum to draw attention to this question. --Spencerian 11:58, 22 October 2006 (CDT)

"The" Galactica

This is discussed in the front page of this policy, #5 "Ships". It says we shouldn't refer to Galactica as "the Galactica". We've usually eliminated this from new articles. However, I've been rewatching much of the series in marathon recently, and I've realized that in practially every episode someone (even Admiral Adama) refers to it as "the Galactica. ***They actually use both terms interchangeably on the show. This is really just a minor point and not drastically affecting anything, I'm just saying that in light of this we should loosen up on the restrictions on that; seeing as "Galactica" (with no definate article "the") is also correct, that means we don't have to go through every article in the entire wiki and change things. I'm just saying, in all future articles, we should be more lax about this. Because I've asked aquintances who served in the Navy and they've told me that vessels were referred to as "the Indianapolis", "The Los Angeles", etc. etc. Agree, disagree?--The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 16:25, 26 May 2006 (CDT)

They (the writers) may make the characters say anything they wish. However, since we are intended as a reference, we need to stick to one way of doing things to keep things from looking odd, at the least. Thus, no definite articles on ship names. Now, there is a convention problem on the TOS pages where we have exactly this problem, which calls for us to conventionize it--despite that almost all times the term used on the show is almost always "the Galactica. The RDM show, as with all things, will fall out of its own convention, but for our purposes of keeping things orderly, we cannot take that luxury. --Spencerian 20:22, 26 May 2006 (CDT)

Well, I really don't understand what you're trying to convey: the writers and the show itself doesn't have a convention, so we should try to establish an arbitrary convention? My big point is: you're saying that "the show might fall out of its own convention"....but I was never convinced that this was a convention. At what point did it become apparent that there was a "don't use the definative article" rule in existence? Is what I'm asking. And If BSG TOS almost always refers to it as "The"....wouldn't that mean that, purely within the realm of TOS, saying "The Galactica" is a convention? I don't understand why just "Galactica" is currently supposed to be a convention---->I mean, do modern navies say that? Because I've checked around and US Navy vessels use the definate article "The" as well. It doesn't make a difference.--The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 20:31, 26 May 2006 (CDT)

When we were originally discussing this (it was one of the earliest discussions of this project), I thought we determined that the US Navy did refrain from using the definite article when refering to a ship, at least in official documents. I'm not saying there's no way we could have been/are wrong, but I'd be much more interested to see how various news papers, Navy press releases, etc. refer to ships. In speaking, people tend to be much more lax, but I'd prefer to borrow from, say, the AP handbook on this. In fact, I have a friend who is a journalist and keeps track of this kind of thing. Should I ask him what the AP rules on this? Does anyone care what they say? --Day ^{(Talk - Admin)} 22:33, 26 May 2006 (CDT)

Oh yeah, Day, exactly; if you can find some thing that says official documents do not use "the" that would be great confirmation. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 10:23, 27 May 2006 (CDT)

Got it. The relevant text will follow, but the Navy has a whole Style Guide.

ship names - For first reference always include USS, the ship's name and the hull number: USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75).

Exceptions: Do not use "USS" for ships before 1909; or if she is not yet in commission; or she has been decommissioned and you are referring to the ship in her present state.

There is no hyphen in the hull number. In All Hands text, the ship name is in italics. On second reference, use only the ship's name. Do not use "the" in front of a ship's name: "USS San Jose," not "the USS San Jose."

Ships are to be referred to as "she" or "her."

Ships' nicknames are placed inside quotation marks on first reference only. USS LaSalle (AGF 3), the "Great White Ghost," sailed into San Diego.

Ship names are not in all caps. Use USS Seattle, not USS SEATTLE.

So that's what the US Navy has to say about it, anyway. We can take it or leave it, but it would be pretty easy just to steal it wholesale. --Day ^{(Talk - Admin)} 21:21, 28 May 2006 (CDT)

Steal it wholesale :) Thanks: that's a definative answer. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 21:58, 28 May 2006 (CDT)

Concur. Steal it and cite it. --Steelviper 22:04, 28 May 2006 (CDT)

Whatever floats the boat, gentlemen, so long as it keeps us to a standard. Mind you, what the US Navy uses is not necessarily what the Colonial Fleet uses, so if I were to see a conflict (based on consistency of usage in episodes), this is something we should review. --Spencerian 10:25, 29 May 2006 (CDT)

Incorperated into the Ships section. --Day ^{(Talk - Admin)} 03:47, 15 June 2006 (CDT)

American vs British English Style Usage

This wiki started with several initial contributors from the U.K. As such, these contributions were written in the Queen's English (things such as centre and not the American English center, for example). As Battlestar season 1 aired in the U.S. and American contributions increased, there is a predominant usage of American English in the wiki. I noted that one user had recently edited a page, correcting some misspellings but also changing correct American English words to their British counterpart. I asked Joe about this very early on in my editing last year, and he noted that we should use American English. I commented on None's talk page about this, adding the following (which I recommend as policy):

• Please use American English for wiki contributions in the English version of Battlestar Wiki whereever possible.
• If you are British, please feel free to add your contributions in the "Queen's English" as this will make it easier for you to contribute. However, please do not re-edit correctly spelled American English edits to their British counterparts unless you are rewriting whole paragraphs, sections, or articles.

Commments? --Spencerian 14:47, 1 June 2006 (CDT)

I must say I am to blame as well for doing this once or twice. When going through pages correcting typos using spell checkers I also found myself accidently "correcting" american spellings for british. Oops --Mercifull 15:14, 1 June 2006 (CDT)

I believe this policy is already stated on the main S&C page, but you can feel free to clarify it if you feel that's necessary. --Peter Farago 16:49, 1 June 2006 (CDT)

Yeah. I thought that was pretty clear, but go ahead and make it more so, if you want, Spence. --Day ^{(Talk - Admin)} 19:59, 1 June 2006 (CDT)

I agree completely, Spencerian. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 12:30, 2 June 2006 (CDT)

Clarified the existing policy. I didn't see the phrase "American English" in my scan. This doesn't apply to the non-English versions of the wiki, so someone with proper or appropriate fluency should restate the policy for these wiki versions so we don't have European Spanish and Mexican Spanish confusions, to take one example. --Spencerian 19:13, 4 June 2006 (CDT)

Comics Canonicity

I'm worried about information from Battlestar Galactica 0. I'm not sure it's entirely canon (i.e. aside from just that it's a comic, they've got Cylons making cloned copies of humans before "Pegasus" when Ron Moore said that they haven't done that yet, and if they didn't they'd make a big deal out of it). ---->Anyway, I like what Memory Alpha does: we shouldn't remove the actual articles for things found in the comic, "Third Colonial Conflict", etc., however, they shouldn't find their way into normal RIC articles, like the Timeline, character bios, etc. etc. You know. So I don't think these articles should be deleted, but I think we should develop a new template to put at the top of each that says "This is from a comic, not canon", and that we shouldn't mix them into standard articles. What's everyone else's thoughts (after seeing the stuff)?--The Merovingian ;sup>(C - E) 13:14, 2 June 2006 (CDT)

I concur. We should keep the stuff, but note that it isn't canon and ensure that it doesn't spill over into the canon articles. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 13:29, 2 June 2006 (CDT)

We could also move these articles as subpages of the comic, so they don't proliferate the canon namespace. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 13:32, 2 June 2006 (CDT)

I agree, but I don't know how to do that. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 13:37, 2 June 2006 (CDT)

That's not a problem. I could do that, if there's consensus to do so. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 13:49, 2 June 2006 (CDT)

• The comics are fully within BSG canon. The writer and producers have said that several times and it says so in BSG 0. However, since you have made it clear that this "encyclopedia" is not interested in anything except episodes that have already aired, I'll save you the trouble of doing anything further with it. Kuralyov 13:58, 2 June 2006 (CDT)
  • All we can do is ask about it directly in the blog, but seriously, I think what RDM did was give it a 5 minute once over, realize they weren't killing off Baltar by making his head explode or say that Apollo and Starbuck are long lost brother and sister, and then gave it the go-ahead for merchandise/publicity. Until we get more word from RDM on the particulars, I don't think a "holding pattern" of keeping it segregated could hurt. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 14:18, 2 June 2006 (CDT)
  • Kuralyov, where have the producers and writers said that these works are canon? Please provide some links to interviews and so forth. Thanks. :-) -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 14:38, 2 June 2006 (CDT)

This is a simple issue. The comics are canon within their own continuity. Where they interesect the main continuity in a purely perfunctory manner (such as Zak Adama), it should be fine to footnote the incident. When large liberties are taken, we can resort to namespaced articles as necessary. --Peter Farago 19:43, 2 June 2006 (CDT)

I concur with Peter on this. I really loved the first issue, but what happens in the comic may not necessarily reflect what's aired in the main series and should be labeled or tagged as such. I'm even OK with using the episode template to further define its continuity (which forces "episode" pages to delineate things) and we already have all the tools, and it also invites discussion. I may move this first comic page to this format just to kill several birds with one stone about this topic to show what I mean. --Spencerian 17:59, 4 June 2006 (CDT)

Then we need to define what a "large liberty" is so that we know it when we see it. I'd be fine including these events as full cannon if someone can show me RDM saying it's cool. Otherwise, we might take a hint from Lucasarts and develop a kind of "level" of cannonicity, or else treat the comic kind of liek the video game: strangely related in some ways, but not really... right. If you take my meaning. If not, I'll try to explain again. --Day ^{(Talk - Admin)} 23:16, 2 June 2006 (CDT)

Hm. Good point, and Merv's concern makes more sense to me in terms of the edits on Timeline (RDM). What if we put all semi-canonical plot points (comics, novels, etc.) in their own section of the concerned articles, to avoid mingling content? --Peter Farago 02:29, 3 June 2006 (CDT)

"like the video game: strangely related in some ways, but not really... right." My thoughts exactly. Well I don't really agree with your idea Peter, though I would not actively oppose it if you decide to do it. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 07:44, 3 June 2006 (CDT)

The difference is that the video game does not take place in the same continuity as RDM at all, whereas the comics do have to acknolwedge RDM continuity - just not vice-versa. --Peter Farago 09:45, 3 June 2006 (CDT)

I've not played it, but my impression was that the video game was supposed to have happened to Bill in the Cylon War, right? So, isn't it supposed to be part of the continuity? Or does it have some kind of big details that make it obvious that it wasn't, really, intended to be in-continuity (as opposed to things like Twelve Colonies = 12 planets vs. TC = 1 planet that would show it being related, but at an early stage in development of the show)? --Day ^{(Talk - Admin)} 23:35, 4 June 2006 (CDT)

I wish it were that easy. The game created or added elements that were to be used in the Singer/DeSanto revival and derived elements from TOS. The William Adama there is actually the one that works more like the original Adama of TOS. There is an Imperious Leader there, with a name, and he seems more like an organic being TOS Cylon. So for the sake of keeping things together, the VG is its own continuity that's really neither TOS or RDM. See Video Game for more. --Spencerian 14:18, 5 June 2006 (CDT)

Our Name

I note that shane has been italicizing "Battlestar Wiki" wherever he includes it. Do we like this? I suppose it's the style we'd use if we were referring to, say, Britannica, but it seems a little self-important to me. --Peter Farago 00:17, 15 June 2006 (CDT)

To note, for reference, I started doing this after I saw a few other places (got to be back around count 40 in my contribs). When Battlestar Wiki refers to itself, "Battestar Wiki uses the etc etc." it not supposed to be quoted, but if a verb follows or preceds (i.e "These are images used exclusively on Battlestar Wiki.") with "on" being the verb refering to the site. If Battelstar Wiki was talking, yes it be non-italixized. But most of the times we refer to Battlestar Wiki. A great place that Battlestar Wiki is italicized is {{Project}}. "This page is one of Battlestar Wiki's many projects." implying Battlestar Wiki. Am I making any sence? :) --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 00:36, 15 June 2006 (CDT)

In different places on this page it's used several different ways.. Battlestar Wiki, BattlestarWiki, and Battlestar Wiki. I don't know, but I can tell you that having Battlestar Wiki as two words, needs to standout instead of Battlestar Wiki. Wikipieda can get away with this because it's just one word. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 00:43, 15 June 2006 (CDT)

Another note, above... --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 00:45, 15 June 2006 (CDT)

It seems like consensus was against italics above. --Peter Farago 00:57, 15 June 2006 (CDT)

I still feel that it should be italizied, and I know joe agreed with CA, but if I had to talk about this issue now, this is how I feel. Granted there are occatiosn when it shouldn't but in most case it has been italiced. I really think its of option in style. Just typing this, I relzied why we should italized. The namespace Battlestar Wiki. This can make it stand out if it's in a project page or text seperate from the namespace. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 01:05, 15 June 2006 (CDT)

As ever, if we do something other than whatever's default (normal text, in this case) I think we should find some outside convention and steal it. When quoting the title of a web page for a bibliography (or Sources Cited page), MLA Style mandates the use of underlining. This is somewhat problematic, since current XHTML/CSS standards advise the use of or over or and sometimes browsers interpret em and strong differently (though we should theoretically be able to over-ride this by specifically styling them in our style sheet). I'd rather, I think, just do without the italics (or any other special styling), if for no other reason than it's easier. --Day ^{(Talk - Admin)} 03:33, 15 June 2006 (CDT)

Quotes

Since we been doing this alot, the "Action" before a quote... should it be in...

''[ Action ]''<br/>
Line 1
Line 2
-- [[33]]

--Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 12:42, 20 June 2006 (CDT)

It seems neater without the brackets. Is the brackets a standard we follow? --FrankieG 13:25, 20 June 2006 (CDT)

I seen it two different ways. I think the Brackts have it "stand out" if it was an action before any text and () actions that are in a line of a quote, should be done that way. "(Sarcastic) shane's a geek" -- shane --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 13:29, 20 June 2006 (CDT)

I don't think there IS a standard yet (which is what Shane was pointing out). So let's figure out how it should be done, and apply that. The transcripts from sadgeezer use italics, but we do use an awful lot of italics already in our quotes. --Steelviper 13:34, 20 June 2006 (CDT)

Just thought that there may be a pre-existing standard on the brackets. Is italics used for more than the episode name? I glad that we I having this discussion. I have been working on quotes and trying to guess how to do things ( not in the existing standards) by looking at the existing quotes. Also, after thinking about Shane's () in the quote, the [] makes sense. --FrankieG 15:09, 20 June 2006 (CDT)

Has anyone ever worked with play scripts and/or screen plays? I bet there's a standard there we might be able to jack. If we don't like it, maybe the AP has a standard for out-of-flow quotes (or maybe not) and we could steal/adapt that. I'll go looking for the AP rules, if someone else happens to know about scripts, that would be awesome. Then, we'll at least know what other, "official" things are doing. If we don't want to do what they're doing, we don't have to. --Day ^{(Talk - Admin)} 23:23, 24 June 2006 (CDT)

Okay. Apparenly the AP guideline is to avoid this style of quoting. So... I looked at a screenplay, and it is ugly... or, as you might say, frugly (or however we'd alter that so the F is for Frak). So, I was thinking that, in the case where the "action" is actually contextual information, rather than real movement or verbs, it could be placed in the attribution. You'll see this a lot with single-speaker quotes in dropquotes in, say, Newsweek. Example:

"Blah blah blah."

--Administrator Day, regarding all this quotes formatting discussion (This is Not an Episode)

For multi-person quotes, this would look like this:

Captain Lee Adama: Nobody's expecting a miracle.

Chief Galen Tyrol: Maybe that's the problem.

--Regarding the construction of the Blackbird, Laura (Flight of the Phoenix)

What do you guys think about that? That still leaves up in the air things where the action really is action, but mayeb we should be including different quotes than those, anyway. --Day ^{(Talk - Admin)} 01:15, 25 June 2006 (CDT)

Never thought of that.... maybe three different styles... the orginal way, my action way, and the day way (group "think" process). --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 17:46, 25 June 2006 (CDT)

Adjustment to Links to Episodes

The current policy appears to be missing a significant item. I recommend adjustment to the policy as follows:

When referring to episodes in text, use quote marks. This helps keep them distinct from other text. This is especially useful for unwieldly episode name such as "Kobol's Last Gleaming, Part I".

• Example: "In the episode "Pegasus", Galactica finds Pegasus."

When using an episode to cite a source, use parenthesis, but do not place quotes around the episode name. Citations go inside the sentence's punctuation.

• Example: "Galactica finds Pegasus (Pegasus)."

When referencing successive episodes within parentheses, place each episode name within quotes, separating them by commas placed within the quotes. (Do not place quotes around the name of Miniseries, as this is a designation and not an actual episode name.)

• Example: Lee Adama is moody often (Miniseries, "33," "Water," "The Hand of God").

This convention is widely used throughout most articles and greatly aids in identifying episode names within a lengthy citation. If it seems contrary in that we add quotes to successive episodes within parentheses but not in a single episode citation, a consistent convention may be to place quotes around ALL episode citations, parentheticals or not. I dinged Shane on this, not realizing we still hadn't properly defined this in policy. In any case, quotes are important when we have titles that are identical to other objects: Pegasus is a prime example, as is Resurrection Ship. Comment? --Spencerian 16:01, 23 June 2006 (CDT)

if these are source, which in which () is being used for, and since only things in quotes should be something in text, it would be bad to do this within the () inline ref symbols. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 16:13, 23 June 2006 (CDT)

Plus just adding "" makes it confusing. If it is going to happen, it should be around all of them, but I think it is an unnessary format. It will also look bad in the middle of text. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 08:23, 24 June 2006 (CDT)

I have no problem in adding this convention in, as we already use it anyway. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 18:49, 24 June 2006 (CDT)

where? I don't see any article like this. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 18:52, 24 June 2006 (CDT)

I agree. We've been using this convention in an unofficial fashion for a long time. We should make it official--The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 20:33, 24 June 2006 (CDT)

You know? I thought this was a convention. I think Merv and Peter (primarily) hashed this idea out on some talk page way ago. It may have been CA and Spence. This is how well I recall the event. Anyway, I think the above, just as it's written, would be awesome. Does anyone think we should note that the Miniseries doesn't get quotes because it's not a title (not because it's the first in the list), or shall we trust people to glean that? I'm generally a fan of being explicit, personally. --Day ^{(Talk - Admin)} 23:44, 24 June 2006 (CDT)

OK, then. Since time and practice has created this standard de facto and a consensus appears reached, I will add/amend the proposed text I wrote earlier as policy. No quotes in single-episode references, but do so in multi-episode parentheticals. --Spencerian 13:06, 11 July 2006 (CDT)

Revising the Episode Guide re Analysis sections

Some of our Analysis sections in the episode guides some more like reviews...and several from season one sound...deeply POV. There's this user that hasn't been around for a year called ernestborg9 who just wrote his own mini-reviews of each episode. Case in point "Colonial Day", he starts off by saying "This is the most poorly-conceived and executed episode in BSG's first season.". Not only is this POV....it's blatantly wrong. I mean it's POV for me to say it, but there *is* room to critique episodes for their faults, but this was I think consensus will agree one of the better scripts: I mean even Ron Moore in the podcasts thinks that like Bastille Day was the worst because it was the early season and they were still finding their footing for a few episodes. And "comparatively worst" doesn't equal "actually bad". Yes, we could say "Black Market was not well put together", but that's more of a report on consensus, and either way we phrased it more gingerly----->My point in all of this is, a lot of the Analysis sections sound more like reviews especially ones from season one, which I tended to not try to fix up before as they were "done" already, but now that I sit through and read them again, I can't believe we've kept these up as long as we have. What is a "good" Analysis, if "Colonial Day" has a bad one? Well I think by Pegasus (episode) we'd worked out what can and cannot be in an Analysis section...I remember MORE stuff in there that we cut out (stuff going off on that Cain is the only visible woman on the ship and has some dominatrix like jungle queen hold on her crew...read the history page, this was actually in there at one point) but we edited it down. ----->Yes, we do "play it loose" with the Analysis section and should on the whole continue to do so, on a consensus-led case by case basis. Analysis *is* the section for making theories...though theories grounded in *evidence*, that is, no wild speculation, but from something in the episode. It should still be a "we play it loose" section of the articles, but they shouldn't sound like POV mini-reviews. We can't say "this episode was bad", though we CAN say "this episode was poorly edited together, major plot points were confusing or poorly presented" (i.e. Black Market) or even for Epiphanies "the Roslin cancer cure was very abrupt and a little quick". Such things are fine. Major thing is that it's supposed to be a "bullleted list" like you see above, not a long three paragraph review of sorts (unless, say, one bulleted point actually runs on that long, which they can, but what I specifically mean is that if you look at Colonial Day and ones like it, it's just a "prose" review, rather than bulleted point by point analysis. --------------------------------->We should retain a "Bloopers" section, such as on "Scattered", only if needed (there normally aren't a lot of mistakes, but occassionally it can be put in). However, we should remove the "Nitpicks" section from all articles and just merge it into "Analysis".

A lot of the early episode guides on BattlestarWiki, not to mention for the Miniseries, don't fit the standard format that we kind of worked out by the second season.

I would like to try to revise all of these, however I don't want it to be *my own* POV, so I'd like to work on this with everyone to bring these sections back into standardization. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 17:33, 9 July 2006 (CDT)

Category's - A, B, and C

While I been working on my articles on Wikipieda, I found out alot of the article's category's are in A, B, C order. Templates don't seem to matter, but user created templates are in A, B, and C order and I think we should adopt this here. Templates like {{featured article}}, {{featured picture}}, and {{quality article}} should be placed below user created categories so they are dead last. Anyway.. that's about it. Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 04:08, 11 July 2006 (CDT)

What does that mean?--The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 12:28, 11 July 2006 (CDT)

I'm curious, too, Shane. Note that this idea appears to a system-wide configuration, not a policy consideration. It may be more appropriate to suggest this on the Think Tank first. --Spencerian 12:56, 11 July 2006 (CDT)

Maybe he is talking about the order in which category tags (and "tag" templates) are added to individual articles? --Steelviper 12:59, 11 July 2006 (CDT)

Not really since the cat's are already there. For example... on the Kara Thrace page... you have these categories here:

[[Category:A to Z|Thrace, Kara]]
[[Category:Characters|Thrace, Kara]]
[[Category:RDM|Thrace, Kara]]
[[Category:People from Caprica|Thrace, Kara]]

would change to do:

[[Category:A to Z|Thrace, Kara]]
[[Category:Characters|Thrace, Kara]]
[[Category:People from Caprica|Thrace, Kara]]
[[Category:RDM|Thrace, Kara]]

No really impact other than it's in alphicaltiial order from: 0-9 to A-Z by first character. Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 13:02, 11 July 2006 (CDT)

Although the current situation doesn't bother me, I have no objection to Shane's suggestion. --Peter Farago 15:43, 11 July 2006 (CDT)

Also helps with the "programs" that read webpages for the deaf. :) Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 15:46, 11 July 2006 (CDT)

Man. If you'd've used the phrase "alphabetical order" rather than "A, B and C" I'd have understood from the get-go. Anyway, now I get it, I see no reason not to have this as a convention. Tangentally, Shane: Why "programs"? Are they not simply programs? Are you implying that they are somehow less of a program than any other utility for some reason? I'm baffled. --Day ^{(Talk - Admin)} 17:01, 11 July 2006 (CDT)

Misspelling for me... --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 17:14, 11 July 2006 (CDT)

*bump*

I approve, due to a deep love for the sorting of lists. --CalculatinAvatar^(C-T) 16:57, 24 July 2006 (CDT)

Great idea. I find myself doing this on articles that I edit, but that's probably because I tend to alpha sort things every day anyway. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 17:02, 24 July 2006 (CDT)

Episode "Guide" Format

See also Battlestar_Wiki_talk:Episode_Standardization#Structure_Change --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 13:32, 24 July 2006 (CDT)

"Original Series" vs. "original series"

I've been running across pages, such as the Sublight Propulsion article, where the original series is treated as a proper noun (i.e. "Original Series"). The same with "Re-Imagined Series". I propose that we stick to a format and keep with it. Preferrably, as neither examples are proper nouns, I propose that they not be treated as such. Thoughts? -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 15:45, 11 August 2006 (CDT)

All lower case. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 16:15, 11 August 2006 (CDT)

Disagree. Title Case. The name of the show isn't "battlestar galactica." The terms "the Original Series" and "the Re-imagined Series" serve as proper nouns we use here in lieu of typing "original 'Battlestar Galactica'" and "'re-imagined "Battlestar Galactica'" all the time. They may not be true proper nouns, but they are useful shorthand here, are clear in usage, and easier on the eyes than the "e.e. cummings" style. They must have an article, however. Further, they visually serve as well as the fully typed out name with its capitalization. --Spencerian 20:00, 11 August 2006 (CDT)

That's a good point... A question though, are you saying that we must have articles (namely redirects) for Original Series and Re-Imagined Series? Nevermind. I just visisted those and discovered that I created redirects using those names... Where's the dunce hat? -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 20:12, 11 August 2006 (CDT)

Umm. Merc has to create one. :) {{duncehat}} --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 20:44, 11 August 2006 (CDT)

I disagree with Shane and Joe and agree with Spencerian: "Original Series" and "Re-imagined Series" are proper nouns and should be capitalized, always. Indeed, up until now I've actually always corrected "original series" (lower case) to "Original Series" when I encounter it. Sort of like "Star Trek: The Original Series (TOS)", BSG TOS is a proper noun. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 23:50, 11 August 2006 (CDT)

I concur based upon the principle that proper noun means "a noun identifying a unique entity." As I interpret that, it should be Original Series, as it names a unique entity. (This is not synonymous with uniquely naming an entity, e.g. John is a proper noun by any account.) The same reasoning would apply to Re-imagined Series, though the i should not be uppercase by the rules for capitalization of hyphenated words. --CalculatinAvatar^(C-T) 05:00, 12 August 2006 (CDT)

Proper notation of TV, book, and movie titles

We're pretty inconsistent in properly marking titles of shows, books and films. Unfortunately, my online research on MLA style hasn't yielded much to help, nor does what I found appear to work, since underlining isn't a good idea here.

I recommend the following be added in the standard of citing film, TV, and book titles on the wiki:

"When citing a film or television show, place the title in italics.

"The new Battlestar Galactica series is dark and dismal compared to the Original Series, and is a far cry from the utopian view in Star Trek."

When citing an television show's episode title, a book or other publication such as a comic, or other merchandise title, place the title in quotations.

The new book, "Battlestar Galactica: The Official Companion," tells more about the series, but lovers of collectibles might like the "Hasbro Titanium Collection."

or

In the episode, "Valley of Darkness," Apollo is anything but moody.

Comments? Or have I missed this convention elsewhere? --Spencerian 12:22, 27 September 2006 (CDT)

Good call. I've missed it also if it exists. I've been wanting one, though, for all the references to TV, books, and movies that RDM makes during podcasts. Italics will probably work fine, with the only place it would be confusing being when RDM refers to the series as Galactica (not talking about the ship). Pretty isolated scenario, though, and it shouldn't spoil it for all the other shows. --Steelviper 12:41, 27 September 2006 (CDT)

For him, I think we can make an exception. :) Any other comments? --Spencerian 10:45, 30 September 2006 (CDT)

Sounds good. If we agree, I will update the cite templates so they are up to date also. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 11:21, 30 September 2006 (CDT)

I know I'm not one of you senior guys, but I agree too. And yeah, for RDM we can sure as frak make an exception. --BklynBruzer 18:12, 30 September 2006 (CDT)

You have just as much a voice as anyone. We admins are just Mop Boys with no extra weight in opinions. Thanks for adding your comment! --Spencerian 21:36, 30 September 2006 (CDT)

Current convention appears to use quotes from episode titles. How do we feel about this? Should we switch those to italics? --Peter Farago 20:39, 30 September 2006 (CDT)

Poop. To keep it consistent, we should, although I remember when we debated and decided on the episode quotations convention. It might be a good thing as episode titles in parentheses will stand out a bit more. I say, "Yeah, those too." I rescind that. We should treat episodes of a television show as a book, so we should keep them in quotations. Thus, no change. I adjusted the text above to reflect that. --Spencerian 21:41, 30 September 2006 (CDT)

Wikipedia:Article Size

Led me to Wikipedia:Summary style. I think we should work on this for us. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 05:30, 11 October 2006 (CDT)

Neat. Worth looking into at least. Especially with the work that Spence has had to do on some of the more prominent characters... --Steelviper 14:37, 12 October 2006 (CDT)

Yep. Definitely deserves some reading. We probably have another 2-4 years of the show, and we have to manage the character bios at least. My rule has been that, if the info is already in the episode summary, then it needn't be in the character bio UNLESS the reason details the character's motivations based on their history. Character motivations, in turn, are too much to add to episode summaries, thus the "balance." --Spencerian 16:47, 12 October 2006 (CDT)

American style punctuation with episode titles

This has already been shortly discussed before, but this is slightly different.
The wiki uses the the American convention of always placing commas and periods inside the quotation marks. Nevermind that this makes no logical sense whatsoever, as the writer should distinguish if the puntuation mark actually belongs to the quote itself or the containing sentence. But I don't want to go into that here.

I think there should be one exception to this: episode titles

The rule is inconsistently applied in this case, but most people place commas after the title. Every now and then though you'll see something like 'When Tyrol did something in "Fragged," or....'
Which just looks silly IMHO. It's not even a real quote. The quotation marks are just used to make clear that it's an episode title. So the comma should go outside.

Maybe this could be added to the page. That American rules apply in all cases but episode titles (if anyone else agrees of course). --Serenity 06:36, 29 December 2006 (CST)

I haven't any problem with this. (I honestly don't care for the commas or periods inside the quotation marks, either, as I agree that it makes no sense when reading.) -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 06:40, 29 December 2006 (CST)

As with everything else, a convention is to keep consistency, the hobgoblin of an encyclopedia. The placement of the comma within an episode title may not seem to matter if one is consistent about it. Right now we move to place them within. If we say, "It's OK not to do so for episodes, but everywhere else should do so," then we give our contributors one extra hobgoblin to remember. I understand if it makes little sense, but trying to stick to one placement (1) keeps visual consistency, and (2) prevents having to remember all the ABA/MLA and other rules. I'm in favor of leaving it as-is as we will have to scour most of our articles to undo that. I guess I don't see the gray here when it comes to consistency, but it won't be the end of the world if we adapt Serenity's suggestion. --Spencerian 12:16, 29 December 2006 (CST)

You do have a point about conventions becoming too complicated, but as far as I can see, many if not most people place them outside already even if they use the American rules otherwise (This isn't a huge problem). It would be far, far more work to "correct" articles by moving them inside than making an exception for titles and moving them outside when necessary --Serenity 14:11, 29 December 2006 (CST)

Notes and Analysis

What should be the difference between Notes and Analysis sections? It should be stated in this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cyborg (talk • contribs).

I have no idea if it's actually stated anywhere, but traditionally, Notes concerns noteworthy things (like "Before this episode aired, Actor confirmed that Character would return to Galactica in this episode"), whereas Analysis, well, analyzes events in the episode. BTW, remember to sign your comments with two dashes and four tildes (--~~~~). --Catrope 15:32, 28 January 2007 (CST)

Analysis is more for explaining and perhaps speculating about events in the episodes. Things that need to be elaborated further. Notes should be small, obvious things, that don't require any explination or interpretation. Moreover, all behind-the-scenes information goes there. For example information gleaned from podcasts or actor interviews; things that aren't evident from watching the episode alone. --Serenity 15:49, 28 January 2007 (CST)

I acknowledge your comments. However, I think many articles don't follow them. In my opinion that calls for a new section in this "Standards and Conventions" article. -- Cyborg 13:06, 29 January 2007 (CST)

I added a bit explaining it. It took some time to develop those quasi standards, so you will find discrepancies especially in Season 1 and maybe up to mid Season 2 or so. But by then I think the admins figured out what they wanted. Though there might some overlap between Analysis in Notes in some cases. In any case, Season 3 probably adheres the closest to what it's supposed to be. --Serenity 13:19, 29 January 2007 (CST)

Original Series definition: a title of nobility (e.g. Lord Baltar)

Re-imagined Series definition: Battlestar Group ^{(TRS: "Water")}. It also doubles as an acronym for the television series itself.

Re-imagined Series definition: in military parlance, directive to continue the attack; otherwise used to refer to journalists ^{(TRS: "Maelstrom")}

Re-imagined Series definition: all-purpose vulgarism; Colonial version of "fuck" (see: frak)