Portal talk:Cylons

Where and how will this be displayed when finished?--The Merovingian 13:37, 15 March 2006 (CST)

Still working on that. It has to do with the new Main Page design that I worked on. --Shane 21:38, 15 March 2006 (CST)

Boxheader template issues

The biggest outstanding issue is with the boxheader regarding defining the colors for the title/body/borders, etc. --Steelviper 13:23, 15 March 2006 (CST)

Colors should not, if possible, be specified in the wikicode or the HTML. Ideally, we should use classes to control color, so that these templates may look good across all skins for the Wiki. This might take some coordination with Joe, though. --Day 14:23, 15 March 2006 (CST)

Didn't he send you the CSS so you could play with that? Anyway, if you can get the colors going, you're welcome to them. I can't even HARDCODE them correctly through all these layers of templates (portal->portal/boxheader->boxheader). --Steelviper 14:36, 15 March 2006 (CST)

I am going to solict some outside help for this problem. --Shane 10:00, 16 March 2006 (CST)

TOS Cylon Pic

Would you like me to get a screen capture of a close-up of a TOS Centurion? I think that would look better than the DVD box cover. --Steelviper 07:19, 17 March 2006 (CST)

Sure. :) --Shane ^{(C - E)} 23:20, 18 March 2006 (CST)

Limiting the universe?

Is this portal to be restricted to the RDM universe? As the wording curently stands, a very large chunk of this page relates only to RDM, not TOS/1980. Anything beyond the 5th sentence, in fact. --Durandal 08:06, 19 March 2006 (CST)

No. It's unretricited to series. Right now most of the infomration I knew came from the RDM series. Once we get the "boxes" to work with the edit button I can add something about the (TOS) "Toaster" Cylons compared with the RDM Metal Cylons. --Shane ^{(C - E)} 10:53, 19 March 2006 (CST)

What's Up With This?

So I was clicking around and seeing what was going on with this (I missed the upgrade and so didn't realize we could begin forward motion again)? This portal is listed as "done" on the project page but looks kind of jacked up to me. Should we move it, or am I missing some detail or... something? --Day ^{(Talk - Admin)} 02:41, 17 April 2006 (CDT)

Correct. This is currently "jacked up". I think Shane dropped it down to one box to simplify the task of troubleshooting why the boxheaders/boxfooters aren't working as designed. I guess this could be safely moved to "not done". --Steelviper 08:15, 17 April 2006 (CDT)

The introduction text is really poorly written right now. Is the page intended to speak of ALL Cylons, or properly divide the RDM and TOS varieties? I missed the upgrade adjustments as well and so I'm trying to figure in the purpose and advantage of the portals vs their existing articles. --Spencerian 09:52, 17 April 2006 (CDT)

The idea behind the portals would be not to replace an existing article, but to act as a central hub for activity and interest about specific topics. Example: Wikipedia:Portal:Physics. The person who started this Portal intended it to encompass ALL Cylons, but there's probably a lot more interest and activity related to the RDM Cylons. There was actually some pretty interesting stuff on earlier versions of this page if you dig back into the history, but there are currently technical difficulties that are keeping the portal boxes from being implemented as smoothly as the Wikipedia one (check out the code behind the wikipedia portal). --Steelviper 10:02, 17 April 2006 (CDT)

I'm not sure there really is one, particularly with as small an article space as we have compared to wikipedia. At any rate, having TOS, 1980 and RDM content mixed together doesn't strike me as very useful. --Peter Farago 10:40, 17 April 2006 (CDT)

Current Human-Cylon Models Sub-Portal

I have been trying for a week and I still cannot get the pictures to line up on the main Cylons Portal page. When you go to edit the Current Human-Cylon Models Sub-Portal it looks fine but editing the script on the Cylons portal does nothing. Anyone else have any ideas? Nwobkwr 17:29, 23 May 2006 (CDT)

Maybe it would be and look better if instead of the Agents we just put a list of everything that fits into the Cylon Category organized by what it is?

Ex: Cylon Vessels:

         Raider
        Basestar
     Resurrection Ship
       Heavy raider

I dunno, I think it would look a bit more organized... --Sauron18 23:59, 02 June 2006

Maybe we could have a separate list of ships but putting them all together would be a little crowded. Anyway,-->the pictures still aren't lining up right. We may have to drop those reference tags if they're screwing up the alignment and just write than info on the bottom. Actually, I'll try that out now; if it doens't work change it back or something. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 08:13, 3 June 2006 (CDT)

Actually, I meant without pictures (at least the majority), sort of like the simple Cylon Page, but instead of being organized by Letter organized by category. Just some thoughts, since I've found it hard to get to certain articles without searching. --Sauron18 05:24, 05 June 2006

How about using invisible wikitables? --Mercifull 06:28, 5 June 2006 (CDT)

The wikitables idea is good but it appears it is already set up that way in the sub-portal. If you're not sure what I mean click the edit button beside "Current Human-Cylon Models." When the page comes up click Portal at the top and you'll see what I mean. It also seems that the entire page needs some revamping since new items have been added since my last post. Nwobkwr 18:50, 9 June 2006 (CDT)

Three known to the fleet?

With Anders in the fleet, wouldn't they know of Number 3 now? --BklynBruzer 19:16, 11 September 2006 (CDT)

Yes and No. There is no on screen evidence that eh told her. I was thinking about this too and I was tempted to remove it myself. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 20:56, 11 September 2006 (CDT)

Well, given that Threes were fairly visible in the occupation, I think it's safe to say they're known to the fleet. --BklynBruzer 21:35, 27 October 2006 (CDT)

"Suspected Cylon of the Week"

I think it should be changed to Anders because of all the speculation after Exodus II. (even though I think he is NOT a cylon) - GMo >:M:< 21:16, 27 October 2006 (CDT)

Go crazy. :-) --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 00:48, 28 October 2006 (CDT)

Number 2

I think we should add a notes section that talks about Cavil being #2 (refer to Talk:Cavil#Number_Two). Say something like "Some fans believe Cavil is actually #2

Evidence:

• "Number Two: This is three downloads for me." that is the quote from the Captioning for Exodus Part I.

Neutral (Are we allowed to use that outside of actual votes?) --BklynBruzer 20:00, 29 October 2006 (CST)

Oppose Captioning evidence is far to flimsy. Let's be patient. --Peter Farago 20:05, 29 October 2006 (CST)

Oppose Ditto with what Peter said, and I'd like him to be Number Two, but can't let emotions guide the reporting.--Straycat0 20:08, 29 October 2006 (CST)

Oppose Also. CC is designed to indetify which person is speaking. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 20:11, 29 October 2006 (CST)

Oppose Captions are often misspelled, incorrect, and not in sync with dialogue (particularly the case with ad-libs). Stronger evidence is needed before making a determination. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 22:00, 29 October 2006 (CST)

Guess we are allowed to use it outside of votes! --BklynBruzer 20:15, 29 October 2006 (CST)

Oppose As with the points above, CC is not a good source, and though I'd also be thrilled at him having a number, I'd rather it be confirmed elsewhere. --Sauron18 22:09, 29 October 2006 (CST)

Oppose As above. --Talos 22:10, 29 October 2006 (CST)

"Human-Cylon Models of the Reimagined Series" Box Clean-Up?

Does anyone else think that the current layout for the Cylon Agent box is getting messy. It'd be a great template if we had more numbers, and it was fine with just Leoben, Cavil, and Simon, but now that we've gotten four more cylons, it just seems kind of silly to have all those blank heads and then the other seven down below, taking up so much room. I really like http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Cylon_Models#Known_Models. Changing the one here to that one I think would work well. Another thing we could do is just reduce the spacing between the Number Unknown cylons in this template. There's no reason they need three lines. Reduce the spacing, and you can get all four of the newest ones onto a single line. If, IF, we ever get the rest of the numbers, I think this template could be great, but with so many numbers unknown, it seems cluttered to me. Alpha5099 13:19, 12 April 2007 (CDT)

Right. The unknowns should be removed in the list of all 12, and all members of the Significant Seven be put there. Then the Final Five (Four) can be listed below. I don't share the obsession about their numbers anyways. There is no meaning behind them. Right now, it's just pointless duplication. I think it looks much better now. Comments? --Serenity 13:42, 12 April 2007 (CDT)

It looks scattered and confusing to me right now. Can't you get it into a nice 4x3 matrix? --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 14:59, 12 April 2007 (CDT)

Only by losing the Significant Seven/Final Five distinction. I think that's at least something people would want. Maybe put all seven in one row? --Serenity 15:07, 12 April 2007 (CDT)

True. The 4-3-5 layout you've good right now is good in essentials, but the pictures are somewhat shifted, i.e. Leoben should be in the middle between Three and Five (right now he's too far to the left), Simon between Five and Six (slightly to the right atm), and Cavil between Six and Eight (almost directly underneath Eight currently). You should be able to do this with a 2x7 table (2 rows, 7 cols), putting the pictures in the odd-numbered columns in the top row, and the even-numbered columns in the bottom row. --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 15:40, 12 April 2007 (CDT)

In the end.. though.. they will all be listed by model number.. I hope. So lets just do it.. Unk... Numbers .... Unk Numbers in 6 wide, 2 deep. Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 15:51, 12 April 2007 (CDT)

I see what you mean. I'll see what can be done... --Serenity 16:13, 12 April 2007 (CDT)

Erm, Shane, could you explain what you mean? Also, the number known/unknown distinction is already present. The page looks slightly better now, except that Cavil is still somewhat too far to the right, and Leoben too far to the left. --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 06:27, 13 April 2007 (CDT)

Probably an alignment issue. Theoretically they are all centered in their cells though. This table stuff confuses me somewhat. --Serenity 09:20, 13 April 2007 (CDT)

Is there no better title than The Significant Seven? I realize it was the term that was used in some interviews, but it was never used in the series, and personally, I think it sounds pretty silly, especially considering that the Final Five seem to be the significant ones. Anything better to call them? Alpha5099 01:42, 18 April 2007 (CDT)

Some questions

In the last cylon box: "The Last Cylon's true identity is only known to him- or herself." - do we know this? They could be like Boomer or the "final four".

This portal does not mention Cylon Raiders, the hybrid, or Hera Agathon and Nicholas Tyrol, who are all cylons to some extent. OTW 08:07, 14 April 2007 (CDT)

Fixed. Changed it to "is unknown". I also linked spacecraft in general and the basestar hybrid. --Serenity 08:43, 14 April 2007 (CDT)

Can anyone explain what is going on with the "Final Stats" section of the Last Cylon box. Number of Suspected Cylons: 5? Where did this number come from? What does it mean? Alpha5099 01:39, 18 April 2007 (CDT)

It's the number of people that have featured in our "Suspected Cylon of the Week" section (a misnomer, as it's been updated roughly every two months), more precisely Billy, Gaeta, Jammer, Dee, Ellen and Kat (so it's supposed to be 6, I changed it) "Total guesses right: 0" means none of those five actually turned out to be a Cylon. --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 07:24, 18 April 2007 (CDT)

"Suspected Cylon of the Week" (Post Crossroads)

"We aren't smart enough to figure it out", doesn't really make sense (and it also puts more faith in the writers than is really justified. In my opinion we should either start speculating again or cut the section. OTW 17:00, 19 June 2007 (CDT)

Concur. --Steelviper 07:20, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

I agree. Having a section that basically says "we can't think of anything useful to put here" is a textbook example of superfluousness. --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 08:35, 20 June 2007 (CDT)