Battlestar Wiki talk:Original Series Article Development Project

Congratulations to All

What a difference a few months make. I personally wanted to give a thank-you to Steelviper and the many people who've stepped up to bring the Original Series articles to practically the same level of depth and detail as our Re-imagined Series articles enjoy. Where we used to find red links on almost every randomly-accessed Original Series article, anyone know can hit these pages and find more than enough detail, complete with very good screen captures. Despite the availiablity of the complete series on DVD, this could not be easy; many contributors had to pick carefully through online sources with dubious canonical value on a show that aired long before the Internet would record its passing.

My two cents: The character pages still seem weaker in comparison to their RDM versions, and the actor bios are lighter still. I've still to get my TOS DVD set to help out, but keep up the good work. I will need to update this personal assessment of the wiki in comparison to other wikis in a few weeks. Not to steal Joe's thunder (he owns the place, after all), but I did want to say that's it great to read about the old show again, if not be able to watch it. --Spencerian 11:12, 8 February 2006 (EST)

Yeah, I still haven't declared victory yet. I'm still plodding along on the episode summaries. Once those are done, I'd like to get an episode by episode breakdown of what they did (for the main characters). Boomer is the closest example on the TOS side of what I'd like all of them to be like (but with more present tense usage). Mokwella and Skywayman come to mind as some people to particularly thank on the TOS side (especially Mokwella's 1980 contributions). --Steelviper 11:24, 8 February 2006 (EST)

Image Hunt

I've been digging through the TOS category, looking for articles that need images. I think we're near 100% of the characters, but there are other odds and ends that could use images. I'm trying to either find an image for it, or classify it as Mentioned-Only (or terminology, figures of speech, or some other category that indicates that an image is not necessary/expected). --Steelviper 16:18, 20 February 2006 (EST)

HTML v Wiki Code

I Quote the Standards and Conventions page:

HTML is allowed to be used, but if you can, please use the Wiki code. Wiki code is faster and if everything is in Wikicode, everything can change if a format or style changes. Then we will not have to re-edit all the pages during a huge update.

So why were the strikeouts hanged to HTML? --Grafix 07:13, 13 April 2006 (CDT)

Using templates for simple markup reduces portability of our content to other wikis, since they would also have to carry over whatever formatting templates we use. The <del> and <u> tags are perfectly legal wiki code, even if they also happen to resemble their corresponding HTML tags. --Peter Farago 10:50, 13 April 2006 (CDT)

Sorry but I stil don't understand what you did because it is against BG S & C. Would another admin , SV?, like to comment? --Grafix 12:31, 13 April 2006 (CDT)

<del> and <u> can be restyled just as easily as templates, using CSS. If you're referring to the edits I made to other user's talk entries, they weren't to substantive content, and enabled the deprecated templates to be removed without damaging the readability of their posts. I don't think it's much different that adjusting indentation, but naturally I apologize to SV if he felt slighted. --Peter Farago 18:04, 13 April 2006 (CDT)

I didn't feel slighted in the least (and if I did, I hope I'd drop a note on your talk page). I'm just a template junky, and knew about the "s" template, and knew something of the "wiki trumps html". I didn't see the discussion over at S&C about portability, and having seen it, I agree completely. (If you just copy and pasted entries with the s template, it would be broken on another board). Ultimately , the "s" template (R.I.P.) didn't really save much time over the strike/del/etc. tags, and strike is valid XHTML. Sorry for the confusion. --Steelviper 20:15, 13 April 2006 (CDT)

Reassessment?

There's still a ton of work to be done on TOS articles. I think this project could greatly benefit from a pretty thorough revamping. I fear I may be too close to the subject and things we've marked "done" here probably could use some more work (especially the "analysis" section of the episode summaries now that that section has become more standardized in the RDM space). --Steelviper 08:18, 26 December 2006 (CST)

After the work to be done has been identified, maybe this page could also play host to an "episode of the week/month/period" whereby a certain episode is highlighted and interested contributors would be encouraged to watch that episode and/or contribute content (specifically enumerated needs) regarding that episode. We could stay on the episode for a set time period or until a set amount of goals for that episode is completed. --Steelviper 08:21, 26 December 2006 (CST)

Sounds like fun. I've got my DVDs but can never get past episode 1. I need some motivation. --Spencerian 19:51, 26 December 2006 (CST)

While I initially feared lack of objectivity might be an issue, the more I ponder, the more I realize that if I don't do the "audit" myself it might not get done. After I get "The Eye of Jupiter"'s podcast transcribed I'll try to go through the TOS articles and establish an episode by episode to do list for the needed fixes/content. Once we have that we can start the "featured episode" section of this project. We could probably do it in a little template that the TOS portal could display, and perhaps even the main page if there's enough interest (but I'm not holding my breath). --Steelviper 20:51, 26 December 2006 (CST)

Page Revamp

I was considering wiping out the old "To-Do List" section, in favor of our new to-do list by episode. If everyone agrees, I'd just wipe it out and transfer any articles in that list into the new episodic format. Once transferred, I'd look at how to incorporate the featured episode onto the page, as well as exploring ways to make this page a bit more visually appealing (while still being easy to maintain the todo items. --Steelviper 08:10, 28 December 2006 (CST)