Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions

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)

Summary issue

Starting from "The Eye of Jupiter", I've noticed that we've broken down the episodes by acts, instead of summaries. Is this something we want to continue doing? -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 16:13, 30 January 2007 (CST)

It was done in "The Eye of Jupiter" because that episode really needed a chronological summary instead of breaking it down by places. Now that the baseship storyline is over, it's not necessary to deal with each plotline seperately anymore. So yes, we can keep it that way --Serenity 16:29, 30 January 2007 (CST)

Right, so that means we have to go through and re-summarize "Rapture" and "Taking a Break from All Your Worries". -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 16:59, 30 January 2007 (CST)

Maybe I wasn't clear, but I meant we can keep the breakdown by acts IMO. No re-organizing needed. Before EoJ many episodes had "On Galactica" and "On a baseship", but that was largely because there were really widely different settings that weren't connected at all (or the Fleet and Caprica in Season 1).

However, even before that some episodes had different sections with "On Colonial One" if a recall correctly. But I don't think that's very useful if the scenes are just set on another ship in the Fleet. So I'd say we only break apart episodes by locations if there are really two or more unconnected plotlines. Otherwise a breakdown by acts is fine. --Serenity 17:08, 30 January 2007 (CST)

Actually, what I was referring to was that we have each act broken down in its own section under "summary", such as in "Rapture" (Teaser, Act 1, Act 2, etc.). In earlier episode guides, such as "33", we merely created sections for "On Galactica" and "On Caprica". I see the point for doing the act-by-act breakdown in "The Eye of Jupiter", since there was a lot there story-wise. However, "Rapture" and "Taking a Break..." don't have this issue, and I was merely wondering if we wanted to have an act-by-act summary instead of an overall episode summary. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 17:23, 30 January 2007 (CST)

Oh yeah. Not a big issue then, but listing the acts helps to break up such a huge chunk of text. You'll also notice that the earlier summaries were also far less detailed. These days we summarize every single scene instead of just the most important ones (though some like "Pegasus" would really benefit from some expansion). I find that the use of "Act.." headers makes it a bit easier to read than just a long stream of bullet points --Serenity 17:47, 30 January 2007 (CST)

I concur. The more of them I've made lately, the better that using Acts work. Easier to write too, chronologically. I'll add it to my to-do list to rewrite summaries for better cohesion. Do we want to do TOS articles in the same fashion? --Spencerian 18:06, 30 January 2007 (CST)

O.K., let's see what everyone else thinks before we go off and rewrite summaries, though. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 18:15, 30 January 2007 (CST)

Way back in the day, I suggested that we do it by acts, however, I can see where this might not be usefull. Interlaced acts that have nothing to do might be better by location. Just like the early episodes where Helo was on Caprica and Galactica was in space, I can see where it is useful. Acts are good for intercrossed locations. (i.e. "Occupation", "Exodus, Part II"). The advantage is with acts is that we can follow Podcasts better. Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 22:29, 30 January 2007 (CST)

The problem with doing it by acts is that on DVD there are no breaks. People might be unsure what bit is the end of act two or the beginning of act three --Mercifull ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 03:48, 31 January 2007 (CST)

I believe that even on the DVDs, you can skip between acts, the player display's number increments for every act, and there should be a short fade to black. Even if there isn't, a wide shot of the fleet often announces a new act.--Catrope 08:49, 31 January 2007 (CST)

On topic, I think that breaking up summaries in acts should actually be the default way to do stuff, unless we have a good reason not to do so (i.e. completely seperate storylines, like Season 1, early Season 2 and the first half of Season 3). --Catrope 08:49, 31 January 2007 (CST)

Is this just for RDM episode summaries, or is it retroactive to include TOS and 1980? --Steelviper 09:26, 1 February 2007 (CST)

I would make it retroactive and universal. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 17:44, 1 February 2007 (CST)

While the 1980 episodes I have are broadcast (and so we've got acts to go by), I only have TOS on DVD's. Will we just guestimate act breaks based on scenes? --Steelviper 10:01, 15 February 2007 (CST)

Just a couple of comments: For new episodes, it could be discussed and decided before the editing freeze is lifted. May want to write-up a Think-tank proposal (or maybe just a policy page) just to get organized and set guidelines. --FrankieG 17:57, 1 February 2007 (CST)

Vote

I guess I should just put this to a formal vote. Using {{support}}, {{oppose}} or {{neutral}}, please vote below:

To summarize, we are voting on changing the summaries to act-by-act summary breakdowns, unless there are two distinct storylines (such as the Fleet and Cylon-Occupied Caprica storyline in season 1 and in the first half of season 2 -- or "Season 2.0").

1. Support -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 17:21, 31 January 2007 (CST)
2. Support --Serenity 17:26, 31 January 2007 (CST)
3. Support --BklynBruzer 21:47, 31 January 2007 (CST)
4. Support Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 23:05, 31 January 2007 (CST)
5. Support We need to mark which is which before diving in, but otherwise, it's cool. --Spencerian 09:21, 1 February 2007 (CST)
6. Support --FrankieG 11:40, 1 February 2007 (CST)
7. Support Don't forget about Season 3.0. @Spencerian: I think in most cases it will be clear which is which, and if the summary-writer(s) get(s) it wrong, we can always call a vote. --Catrope 15:00, 1 February 2007 (CST)

stating the ship type all the time

What I mean is that a lot of articles start with or contain sentences like "...is a pilot assigned to battlestar Galactica". Maybe it's just me, but it sounds odd, and most of all very repetitive.

I don't think that in real life many people say "assigned to aircraft carrier so and so". If anything I feel it should say "...the battlestar Galactica", with a definite article.

But all in all, I think that it is unnecessary to specify the ship type every single time. Everyone knows it's a battlestar. It doesn't have to be repeated ad nauseum. The succession boxes is another place where that is not needed. I don't know how this developed, but it seems to be some kind of quasi-standard. And I've removed it many of my latest edits, only leaving it where it has really a point. --Serenity 15:12, 1 February 2007 (CST)

A lot of contributors appear to like doing that. I allow it once in an article with full wiki links to both "battlestar" and "Galactica", and remove any others. Similarly, some editors want to wikify "Galactica" every time. I'm ambivalent of the use of "the battlestar Galactica" but I definitely crack down on the use of "the Galactica." We can add a simple line to the definite articles section about the overuse and recommending not to. --Spencerian 15:30, 1 February 2007 (CST)

Yeah, I'm against "the Galactica" too (it's used on the show, but it sounds a bit odd there too). But "the battlestar Galactica" is ok for me. It sounds right to me because the "the" refers to the ship type. Just "...battlestar Galactica" makes it sound like "battlestar" is part of ship's name -- though oddly, that is alright in the role field of character boxes.

I can't really bring forth many real arguments though; it's mainly a feeling. Though even with that, I think it's unnecessary to automatically use it, unless there is a really good reason to say that it's a battlestar. --Serenity 15:50, 1 February 2007 (CST)

One of the reasons you might see battlestar appended to Galactica is that it is the name of the show, and so I think in some people's mind that might sound a bit more dramatic (coming full circle with the name of the show). What they may not see, however, is all the other places where it is also done, and how the effect (if there was one to begin with) quickly loses its effect when repeated ad infinitum throughout the site. I don't really feel too strongly on the issue myself, other than to note that the redundant use of battlestar is less concise, which might anger (or sadden) the "concision fairy". And we don't want that. --Steelviper 09:59, 15 February 2007 (CST)

IMO "the Battlestar Galactica" is OK in some cases, but in all other cases "Galactica" should be used. "The Galactica" is said only in the Miniseries, IIRC. --Catrope 10:18, 15 February 2007 (CST)

Am I the only one who doesn't really have any problem with using "the Galactica?" --BklynBruzer 12:15, 15 February 2007 (CST)

It's not REALLY that big of a deal, and they used to do it all the time back in TOS. However, in order to provide a uniform viewing/reading experience we needed to pick one way and stick with it. We chose to go with the US Navy writing convention of not using the "the" in front. Also (although this didn't factor into the decision, I don't think) if you count up the characters saved by NOT using "the" in front of every instance, you're probably saving a startling amount of storage space (maybe even several kilobytes... :P) --Steelviper 14:31, 15 February 2007 (CST)

Those saved KBs will allow two extra visitors before the server crashes (if we ever get Slashdotted :P). Seriously, we chose a convention to go with, so for the sake of consistency we should use it everywhere. BTW, is this particular convention mentioned in BW:SAC? --Catrope 14:42, 15 February 2007 (CST)

Yeah, the use - or not - of the definite article is mentioned --Serenity 14:47, 15 February 2007 (CST)

But the use of the ship class (which this entire section is about, see its title) is not mentioned --Catrope 14:57, 15 February 2007 (CST)

All, this argument has been already discussed, ad nauseum, over a year ago. The primary reason, as noted by many, is for consistency here for the wiki. Characters in both shows say "Galactica" or "the Galactica." But here, to keep an article from sounding like it's written in many voices, we stick to one constant. Yes, this is already an established policy. See this link for the previous archived discussion on this talk page, and the subarticle of the parent, "Ships". The only time that "battlestar" should be capitalized is in the show name, although a sentence that begins (and appears) like "Battlestar Galactica hit a pothole near the Ionian system" is acceptable. I used to capitalize it myself, it seemed more "dramatic." But since I become of the Body, I know I'll be stoned if I say otherwise--and not in a good way. We should have a really good reason to change an established policy; it's gone through the crucible once already. --Spencerian 15:03, 15 February 2007 (CST)

The sidetracking above aside, this is neither about using the definite article, nor is about capitalizing the word "battlestar". Both things which I'm well aware of and agree with. It's about the constant use of the word in front of ship names. Though I removed it in many articles by now --Serenity 15:18, 15 February 2007 (CST)

<toomuchcoffee>OK, I understand. I recommend that we add to the Ship section: "It is unnecessary to use the modifier of "battlestar" (as in "battlestar Galactica") more than once (and only at the start of the article) for the same reason it is unnecessary to say "starship Enterprise" or "battleship Yamato" throughout any text. Using the ship's classification repetitively in this fashion is distracting and also adds unnecessarily to the size of an article." </toomuchcoffee> --Spencerian 15:40, 15 February 2007 (CST)

Support. Keep it up with the coffee. --Catrope 15:44, 15 February 2007 (CST)

Done. It says everything that needs to be said. But I removed the part about "only at the start of an article", as there can be instances when it's alright or even necessary to use it later too. For example you're writing about a character and need to say "was transferred to the battlestar..." halfway down. Or it could say "The Fleet was joined by the battlestar Pegasus".

Episode Guide Sections

Current convention is Questions, Analysis, Notes. I think this should be reversed to Notes, Analysis, Questions. Rationalle:

Notes are simple pieces of noteworthy information that do not require explication. Analysis discusses inferences and ramifications of aforesaid notes, and Questions explores missing information which cannot be covered in Analysis. The logical reading order is from most factually established information to least, not the other way around. --Peter Farago 14:42, 17 February 2007 (CST)

It's sensible, and may prevent repetitive data as the most imformative stuff is more to the forefront of the article. --Spencerian 14:45, 17 February 2007 (CST)

Add Official Statements after notes? Otherwise Ditto. Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 14:53, 17 February 2007 (CST)

Could go either way on that. On the one hand, they often answer questions that the audience would otherwise be left wondering about, so they should be located beforehand. On the other, they aren't actual episode content, so it makes sense to demote them to the end of the article with a "see official statements" link in the relevant question. --Peter Farago 15:06, 17 February 2007 (CST)

I think that analysis and notes are the most important and interesting. Questions aren't that important and often too trivial IMHO. Putting them more towards the end makes sense from both an objective and my subjective point of view. --Serenity 14:56, 17 February 2007 (CST)

I support Peter Farago's plan, but I do propose we postpone it until after the end of this season. --Catrope 14:35, 18 February 2007 (CST)

Why? It's a three-hour project at most. --Peter Farago 14:52, 18 February 2007 (CST)

You'd be surprised how much difficulty we have in getting the regular podcasts done before the next one appears. Currently, we're still missing Act 4 from The Woman King, while the podcast for A Day In The Life is probably up already. Steelviper and I are doing what we can, but we appear not to have enough spare time. More stuff to transcribe is the last thing we want right now. --Catrope 15:08, 18 February 2007 (CST)

All we're talking about doing is changing the order of sections in an episode guide - it has nothing whatever to do with transcription. --Peter Farago 15:37, 18 February 2007 (CST)

I'm sorry, I typed my reply in a hurry and mixed up this discussion with the one about transcribing Q&A's. --Catrope 08:34, 19 February 2007 (CST)

Sensible. I'm go for it. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 17:34, 18 February 2007 (CST)

Is this still on? It's something that could be done now. --Serenity 11:17, 17 April 2007 (CDT)

Yep. It's on the "List". I even solicited for members of "Project Rewatch" on scifi.com to lend a hand with this (since they'll be rewatching them all anyway), though I haven't seen anything come of that yet. --Steelviper 11:29, 17 April 2007 (CDT)

You are referring to a conversion of everything to act breakdowns. This is about a re-ording of the different subsections like Analysis, Notes and Questions. But I can do that later today. --Serenity 11:37, 17 April 2007 (CDT)

Wikipedia:Article Size, Part 2

Archived Location on discussion.

We need to implement this. Bios are getting to big to handle on one page. Look at Lee Adama and Galen Tyrol. There are over 24 subheadings on bio between the two of them. Now, thank god I read fast, but if I wanted to get to the point real quick, I have to read each characters by day. I expect "lists" pages to be long (i.e. Special:Longpages) but not bios. So... what should we do? Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 08:45, 26 February 2007 (CST)

I don't see the problem just yet. Yeah, some of the character bios are getting very long, but for now I can live with it. The headers help to break up the text into smaller chunks. But how do you propose to break it up into smaller articles? Going by seasons would probably work best. --Serenity 10:57, 27 February 2007 (CST)

I still say summarize. Not every last activity about a character is important - for example, who cares about Kara Thrace's activities in the last episode, "Dirty Hands"? --Peter Farago 11:06, 27 February 2007 (CST)

Proper nouns (or not)

For technical reasons all articles need to start with capital letters. What I noticed quite a bit is that people then treat it as a proper noun instead of recognizing the technical limitation. "Algae planet" for example. Or worse "Algae Planet", as often the second word is also capitalized for no reason. So, should we mentioned that article names should only have one capitalized word and that the links should not be capitalized either (unless it's really a proper noun of course). Or would that just create more red tape, as we already have tons of rules about small stuff? Might seem like too much for new people. --Serenity 10:52, 27 February 2007 (CST)

Easier to fix, than to implement. Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 11:02, 27 February 2007 (CST)

Doesn't BW:TERM already implement this? --Peter Farago 11:04, 27 February 2007 (CST)

Not really. That just lists terms for stuff that hasn't been given a name. But Shane is probably right, that it's easier just to edit articles than make a rule about it. --Serenity 11:13, 27 February 2007 (CST)

Book titles

The advice in this project page to put quotes around book titles (and "other publications" to the extent that it refers to complete publications, not articles or other subcomponents of a publication) not only conflicts with itself (because it says later to italicize newspaper titles and those of other "larger works"), but also conflicts with pretty much every English-language style guide ever published. Book titles are italicized, as are magazine names, and other titles/names of self-complete publications and productions (movies, stage plays, TV series). Book chapters, TV show episodes, newspaper/magazine articles, named stage play acts, and other such subcomponents of larger works get quotation marks. Having book titles in quotes in here looks very amateurish and sloppy. :-( 17:49, 26 September 2007 (CDT)

True. Books are generally italicized. But don't we do this already sometimes? Case in point Encyclopedia Galactica. Or the footnotes in Filming locations (RDM) for example. Though some other articles (about the books themselves) use neither quotes nor italics. --Serenity 17:53, 26 September 2007 (CDT)

Date Standard

We we talking about this before, somewhere else, can't remember where, but any-who -- we should come up with a date standard. most of our stuff has 3 different date types. Broadcast data, episode guide (mostly BIO), and then the template in which we have for broadcast information with links and time of the broadcaster. So.. uniformed dates. Any ideas throw them out. I follow the consenus because I am almost ready to work on a new set of these broadcast templates from the redesigned Template:Master screencap on the media wiki. Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 03:28, 28 January 2008 (CST)

For infoboxes and templates, I would prefer the use of YYYY-MM-DD. For citations and regular prose, I would prefer that we stick to DD Month YYYY, thus getting rid of the comma. Although it's common to do the reverse, it simply reads better. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Battlestar Pegasus} 13:29, 16 February 2008 (CST)

Images

I'd like to add a provision in regard to the image galleries, since they are becoming more prevalent now. While the wording can be debated, the following points should be made:

1. Image galleries are to be used sparingly. On smaller articles, such as those for ships, it is common to see a gallery composed of the top, bottom, and side views of the subject, in addition to other images that may note a peculiarity worth noting. This is acceptable. On pages for characters, episodes, and other articles, image galleries should never be used, due to fair use concerns and the fact that Battlestar Wiki is not an image gallery.
2. The only exceptions to the above should be with regard to the comics (and books) that have multiple covers, in addition to other merchandise, such as the Minimates.
3. Otherwise, Battlestar Wiki prefers that images be within the prose of the article, thus abrogating the need for image galleries.

We should also note that images in the infoboxes should be:

1. High quality with a minimum dimension of 200px in width.
2. Be the newest image available.

The above should have the explicit caveat that common sense prevails in such cases. For instance, we wouldn't want to upload a screen shot of Kara Thrace every time a new episode airs, because that would be ridiculous.

Ok, that's all I have to say for now on that subject. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Battlestar Pegasus} 13:42, 16 February 2008 (CST)

Looks like a plan. I recently killed an image gallery at Kara Thrace consisting of one image :D --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 16:04, 17 February 2008 (CST)

Cleanup and Organization

I'm done with the cleanup and organization of the Standards and Conventions. I've also added summaries of each section to the main page, so to help people know what to do about certain things without reading paragraphs explaining the whys and wherefores. Thoughts? -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Battlestar Pegasus} 23:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. This split was long overdue. One thing I always wondered is why do we have different standards in the Quotes? For no apparent reason, episodes are italicized and not put in quotes there. That whole section could be cut drastically, if we used the same rules as everywhere else. Though changing that now would be too much work. -- Serenity 08:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I've always wondered that myself. But now it's too much to go through and change... call it a quirk, I guess. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Battlestar Pegasus} 16:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Numbers

"Numbers less than 11 should be spelled out, "five" for "5", etc." May I suggest that when we find out who "Number Eleven" and "Number Twelve" are we continue to write out their numbers in full for consistency (so we don't have "Number Four and Number 11 meet" OTW 23:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. :) -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Battlestar Pegasus} 23:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Name and Callsign Standardization

I know that there have been some recent concerns over phrasing a character's full name to read 'Lee "Apollo" Adama' or 'Alex "Crashdown" Quartararo'. Therefore, I wanted to start discussion on this, seeing as a lot pages on the wiki need to be standardized to get rid of the over-use of callsigns in favor of standard given last names.

To explain where I'm coming from, I feel that the characters should ultimately be introduced with their full name (first and last name) and callsign, simply because viewers sometimes don't get the fact that "Apollo" is a callsign for Lee, particularly if they are new viewers. Also, the lesser known characters (such as Skulls, Racetrack, and Crashdown) are referred to mainly by their callsigns, but do have names that we know of. Therefore, we there needs to be an effort to standardize them across the board, ergo the above idea.

I know some of you object to this, as I've seen in your edit summaries, but I wanted to discuss it here just to make sure everyone knows where I'm coming from. Thoughts? -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Battlestar Pegasus} 19:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we just link Apollo to Lee Adama? --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 19:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

We could do that, but it just disjoints the prose. Also, it's not really encyclopedic to refer to people by nicknames or callsigns when we have their actual names, even for the sake of convenience. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Battlestar Pegasus} 20:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

My personal annoyance with this is mainly that it sounds somewhat artificial to me (it's probably just me and I'm overreacting...), especially when it's done two or three times in a row. It actually reads like it's a standard. One character is generally fine, but particularly with Racetrack/Skulls, Racetrack/Athena or Boomer/Crashdown it's always something like "Later, Margaret "Racetrack" Edmondson and "Hamish "Skulls" McCall fly in their Raptor". It's just the sound of that that I don't particularly care for, for some reason :s You talk about bad prose with disjointed references. For me, always noting the full name and the callsign inbetween is bad prose too.

I can see the point with lesser known characters, for example Racetrack who is generally referred to more by her callsign than her name. That's one reason why I left that in the recent edit. I just think, rather than making it an ironclad standard, that some case-by-case judgment should be used about when to use names only and when to add the callsign. With the Battle of Kobol (RDM) article, I felt that it's not necessary to do it for Apollo and Starbuck, since they barely play a role in that section. Apollo is only mentioned as her wingman, and only plays a role during the boarding later, and Thrace only steals the Raider. The section is really about Crashdown, Boomer and Racetrack, so it's better to introduce them fully, since their names are used more often and in both variations.

At the same time, I think we kinda agreed that callsigns are appropriate for piloty actions. So using Racetrack exclusively in the battle article would be appropriate (though she can be introduced with callsign + name), whereas, in a scene in Joe's bar for example, her real name should be used instead. -- Serenity 20:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The pilot vs. other stuff convention is a long-standing one that's followed pretty closely. However, I should reiterate that even if we decide to introduce people as Kara "Starbuck" Thrace, we should only call them that once and use their callsign or surname (whichever is appropriate) from there on, just like we do when introducing normal people (i.e. "William Adama ... Adama ... Adama"). --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 21:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No one is suggesting to use it several times for one character. It's just about the introduction, and what you say is more or less what's done at the moment. But I think doing it in every introduction already creates formulaic sentences, because it's generally done either at the beginning of a paragraph and/or a sentence. IMO this isn't something that should be standardized so clearly that it needs to be done every time, but only when really needed, so that it doesn't impede the prose. For example it's superfluous when a character hardly plays a role in the text, or if subsequent references only use the real name anyways. At least with main characters. As said, when talking about people like Racetrack or Hot Dog, who are really referred to by their names, noting the callsign makes some sense. -- Serenity 21:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Logical punctuation

After seeing the link in the edit summary I just noticed that Wikipedia uses logical punctuation. Interesting. I thought they used American punctuation, but in practice it's probably completely mixed just as here.

I was under the impression that we mostly used American punctuation here, but it appears that the Season 4 articles, at least, use logical punctuation almost exclusively (before Passivity changed them). While the SAC says we use American punctuation, in fact there is a lot of logical one as well. Personally I generally use that as well, because I'm used to it and American punctuation just doesn't make the slightest lick of sense. It's just a stupid holdover from the days when the publications where typeset and there was a technical reason to print them inside. These days, many scientific publications for example are switching over to what the rest of the rest of the world does: place the punctuation marks where they actually belong.

While I'd prefer logical punctuation everywhere, I'm not really saying that we should change it over officially. Just pointing out that we have an inconsistency here. People use different styles and while one article may be consistent in itself, some others are formatted differently. -- Serenity 14:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a mishmash, in practice. Generally speaking, putting commas outside of quotation marks makes tremendously more sense, and is far better stylistically. As with everything else American, we aren't exactly the greatest at making things efficient. For instance, we still haven't implemented widescale use of the Metric system, despite the fact that we're only one of maybe two or three countries who still use the "English" garbage while everyone else has converted some time ago. Anachronisms die hard, unfortunately. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Battlestar Pegasus} 14:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)