Battlestar Wiki talk:Silly pages

I have to say that I find the idea of a formal policy on Silly Pages a little bit disagreeable. We already have a few generally agreed upon guidelines: Silly pages should be few in number, and funny. Anything else is up for grabs, and as for how we judge humor, I'm content with the Stewart Test ("I know it when I see it"). --Peter Farago 17:38, 23 May 2006 (CDT)

I agree with Peter. We should only have had one or two of these and a policy just makes more. Further, the idea of having a combined silly page with the real toaster article was a bad move. I'm going to try something with Toaster, I'll try it and we'll see how it works out...--The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 18:27, 23 May 2006 (CDT)

You both say this is a "stupid" idea yet, the "Battlestar Wiki:Human Census Survey" page is never questioned. If you keep the silly pages in contect with Battlestar Galactica, I think it might have some merit for this Policy to voted on and to be approved of, or this might be "already" approved apon because the "Battlestar Wiki:Human Census Survey" page has been here for a while. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 10:48, 25 May 2006 (CDT)

I generally had the same opinion as Peter until I realized that a place like this calls for structure. So, this policy proposal is a trial balloon. If we leave silly page generation in the "I don't know if its art, but I know what I like" stance as we have it now, it's left for POV (instead of established guidelines) on whether the page is funny or not, if the page is appropriate or not. A few ground rules allow us to say outright what cannot be a silly page topic but leave the rest of the work of maintaining such pages to the usual mechanisms. Else, it will appear that us veterans (a minority) are collectively speaking for the entire wiki in a sense. We can distill the whole policy to three or four things-- keep it funny, keep it relevant, and don't ridicule anyone. So if the pages exist, there has to be a reason and criteria for them as with all other pages. As an alternative, we should incorporate some language about this topic in an existing article, such as our policy on patent nonsense and related matter. --Spencerian 08:13, 24 May 2006 (CDT)

Your four points are good. Is there a reason we can't just list them and be done with it? The concision fairy would approve. As for POV issues, I think humor is inherently, and by necessity, a matter of opinion. What goes and stays is always going to be a judgment call, and inevitably, veteran users are going to have a little more weight. I don't see anything wrong with that, or any way around it. --Peter Farago 17:58, 25 May 2006 (CDT)

That's fine. I wanted to have some level of control to these, but a little looseness is fine. I'll review and concise with your thoughts and others in mind. --Spencerian 11:40, 15 June 2006 (CDT)

Added Caluse about BW:FA nomination. Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 09:04, 21 February 2007 (CST)

Vote

• Date Started: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 at 12:00 (UTC)
• Date Ending: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 at 12:00 (UTC)

Instructions: Use {{Support}}, {{Oppose}}, {{Abstain}}, and {{Neutral}}, supported by a reason and appropriately signed using the four tildés (~~~~).

Other users are encouraged to vote as well, simply use {{vote}} to add your vote. Refer to Template:Vote for complete instructions.

1. Joe Beaudoin Jr. -
2. CalculatinAvatar - Abstain. Automatic leave of absence due to inactivity.
3. Day - Abstain. Automatic leave of absence due to inactivity.
4. FrankieG -
5. Mercifull -
6. Peter Farago -
7. Serenity -
8. Shane - Support Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 09:04, 21 February 2007 (CST)
9. Spencerian -
10. Steelviper -
11. Talos -
12. Catrope - Support Catrope 11:07, 21 February 2007 (CST)

Re-imagined Series definition: derogatory term for Cylons in general