Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions

Note: Individual discussions which we believe have reached consensus have been archived.

• Archive 1 (September 10th, 2005 to November 31st, 2005):

Verb Tense, Ship Naming, Abbrevation and Capitalization Standards, Signing Your Work, Spelling, Single-name Address, Episode Links and Formatting, Proposed Guidelines for Dispute Resoluton on Speculative Matters, Quorum of Twelve, Namespaces

• Archive 2 (December 1st, 2005 to February 5th, 2006):

Disambiguation, Image Sizes, Image Credit, The Freakin' Quote-o-Matic, Links, HTML, Verb Tense 2, Ranks and Locations, Image Format, Image Control Station, Dates, Battle pages formatting, Ages, Ship gender, XHTML Compliance, Policy?, Replacement and retirement of the term "Humano-Cylon", Punctuation

• Archive 3 (March 17th, 2006 to April 25th, 2006):

After Questions...now Analysis?, Disambiguation Location, Cast pages Overview section, Template Font Size and Design, Succession Boxes, Regarding excerpts from larger articles in other pages, Regarding succession box formats, Archives Pages

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)

"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 <em> or <strong> over <u> or <i> 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)

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)

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")}