User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr./Archive

For discussions prior to September 2, 2005, click here.

Character Pages...

I wasn't sure where to drop this, so I put it here... I thought about putting it in the update talk, but that didn't seem right, either. I wonder if we shouldn't standardize how the Character pages are laid out (aside from the Template:Character Data, I mean). For instance, Lee Adama's looks really sharp. Notice it's got the contents at the top, then his Bio (the title of which might be haggled over later Biography vs. Biographical Notes or whatever), which ties in nicely to the Character Data box. On the other hand, if a page is too short to have or organized such that it doesn't have contents, that might look a little odd (Cf. Day).

On the other hand, we could do something like Aaron Doral's page with the intro paragraph to kind of act as that spacer in lieu of the contents listing. However, in cases where you do have a contents listing this looks, to my eye, not as sharp (Cf. Agathon, Karl C. which will soon be moved by me to Karl C. Agathon assuming I can figure out how to do it).

So, Joe and anyone else reading this... Whatcha think? Should we do without the intro and go straight into the Bio with a level 2 heading so that our longer write-ups look sharper? Should we have that intro so that our longer write-ups look less sharp, but our shorter ones look more sharp? Or should we change this based on length, so that there's an intro paragraph if it's too short for contents, but no intro paragraph when it gets long enough for one?

OR is my aesthetic sense telling me wrong and you guys like things I think are "less sharp" and so we should go with some otehr scheme entirely? --Day 01:51, 31 August 2005 (EDT)

We had the same idea, day. I've started a project page at Battlestar Wiki:Characters. --Peter Farago 04:00, 31 August 2005 (EDT)

Wonderous! I'm going to move my character-based project notes from my User page to that project page. Collaboration and communication please me. --Day 04:16, 31 August 2005 (EDT)

Deletions

Joe, could you either examine the move requests at Battlestar Wiki:Characters and assist us with moves to article titles already occupied with redirects, or enable me to delete the relevant redirects myself? --Peter Farago 04:53, 31 August 2005 (EDT)

I'll aid you as needed. Good project BTW. :-) -- Joe Beaudoin 09:05, 31 August 2005 (EDT)

Specifically, Joe, we need Karl Agathon and Gaius Baltar deleted so that we can move Agathon, Karl C. and Baltar, Gaius to them respectively. Thanks. --Day 17:18, 2 September 2005 (EDT)

Spoiler Policy

I'm concerned that the discussion and vote on Battlestar Wiki talk:Spoiler Policy have wide participation, so as to provide a legitimate result. Would you consider advertising it in the site notice for a week or so? --Peter Farago 04:53, 31 August 2005 (EDT)

Will do. -- Joe Beaudoin 09:07, 31 August 2005 (EDT)

Ban request

Joe, I humbly request that you ban user "Philwelch", if you see fit to do so. On Wikipedia.org, he keeps flaming the Cylon and Battlestar Galactica pages, adamant in the belief that "12 Cylon Models" includes Centurions leaving only 11 humanoid ones (nonesensical). He's counterproductive and often makes unsubstantiated jumps of logic. Please, instill the fear of God in him.--Ricimer 31 Aug, 2005

Oh, let him be. It's not like the issue is cut and dried. Can't we just make a note of the controversy and leave it? --Peter Farago 13:58, 31 August 2005 (EDT)

Right now, my decision echos Peter's -- make a note of the issue regarding the ambiguity of the statement (because there is ambiguity present in that "12 Models of Cylon" statement) and ensure that all POVs and speculations are treated accordingly and with respect. -- Joe Beaudoin 18:39, 2 September 2005 (EDT)

Image Thumbs

Can we change the background color of image thumbs to black? The yellow links don't show up very well against white, currently. --Peter Farago 16:04, 2 September 2005 (EDT)

Planning on some cosmetic changes anyway. So I'll get right on it. -- Joe Beaudoin 16:29, 2 September 2005 (EDT)

I'd like to voice an opinion for dark grey or some shade. I think it's important to stand out against the black page background, but I agree the links are impossible to read. I'd been meditating on a proper solution for a couple days and dark grey doesn't entirely satisfy me, but it's better than either white or black. In my opinion, anyway. --Day 17:03, 2 September 2005 (EDT)

How about the red shade I've implemented? -- Joe Beaudoin 17:04, 2 September 2005 (EDT)

Hrm. Not what I'd expected, but not bad, either. The links are certainly readable now, and it fits more with the theme of the site, so I think it's a good call. --Day 17:17, 2 September 2005 (EDT)

Contents?

Joe... You may be messing with the contents boxes as I type this, but, for what it's worth, I liked them better on the left and not wrapped. If they stay right, we may have to reasses some of our aesthetic choices for character pages (or, actually, probably just edit the Character Data template to be left-aligned. It also bugs me that if there's not intro paragraph, the re line under the first topic and the red line un "Contents" don't line up in my browser. This is a small thing, I know. --Day 17:27, 2 September 2005 (EDT)

How about if the TOC is organized horizontally instead of vertically...? The only reason I aligned it to the right was because of all that wasted whitespace, which annoyed me personally. -- Joe Beaudoin 18:36, 2 September 2005 (EDT)