Battlestar Wiki:Galactipedians Quorum/Archive4: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 01:54, 11 April 2020

Archive - Between September 27, 2006 and October 10, 2006

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current talk page. Please add new archives to Archive 04.

Copyright violations BY Wikipedia?![edit]

I was scanning the various BSG articles on Wikipedia when I realized many articles there have directly lifted from Battlestar Wiki. We could consider this a form of flattery, or ask them to rewrite their own since our CC license isn't compatible with their GDFL license--or is it true in the reverse?

In any case, I marked their Battlestar article as a copyvio as it's almost a direct lift from Galactica type battlestar. What's to be done, or does anything really need to be done? --Spencerian 22:58, 27 September 2006 (CDT)

You are correct that the GFDL doesn't allow the inclusion of CC-BY-NC-SA content, and thus shouldn't be using our content. From a practical standpoint, however, I'm not particularly interested in pressing the issue. --April Arcus 00:14, 28 September 2006 (CDT)

You'll actually find that the Battlestar article does have some content which has been lifted from BSGWiki, however the majority is unrelated, i've removed the violation text while i rewrite it. I notice in the history youa re the primary contrib to the article for the RDM Galactica, If you wish you ould dual license your text under the GFDL allowing Wikipedia to reproduce any text you created. MatthewFenton 03:41, 28 September 2006 (CDT)

Template works in Wikipedia, but not in Battlestar Wiki ... Why?[edit]

Hello, "Template" means in German "Vorlage". I have a "Vorlage" on my Wikipedia User Page wikipedia:de:Benutzer:Tirkon/Test. It is an episode list of one season, which can be expanded to all seasons and collapsed back. I think, it is clear, where its good for. I have copied this "Vorlage" to my Battlestar Wiki account de:Benutzer:Tirkon/Test. But there the expanding and colapsing does not work. Does anybody know, why? Thank you for an answer. -- Tirkon 19:23, 28 September 2006 (CDT)

When importing templates from Wikipedia, one has to remember that there is a considerably foundation that many Wikipedia templates take advantage of. You'd not only have to copy over the code of the Navigation List, but also all the templates included in it, and all the templates that those templates include (and so on). Which is not to say that it is impossible, just sometimes tedious and time consuming. --Steelviper 06:18, 29 September 2006 (CDT)

There is another "Vorlage" = template, which was included in Wikipedia. I have also copied this de:Vorlage:EpisodeExpand. Could it be, that there are other templates in Wikipedia, which are needed but not visible in the text of the template? Sorry for silly questions, but I never before established templates. And I cannot ask in Wikipedia, because it is no problem there. -- Tirkon 06:40, 29 September 2006 (CDT)

Shane will probably be able to respond more precisely once he comes online. --Steelviper 06:49, 29 September 2006 (CDT)

Thanks, the edit side of the included template in Wikipedia does not show any included templates. see here: [1], They are normally mentioned under the edit-box. -- Tirkon 06:57, 29 September 2006 (CDT)

Yeah, what I was mistaking for inclusions were actually parameters (with three brackets). It may be a CSS issue, with all the different classes being used (NavFrame,NavHead,NavContent and NavEnd), which is REALLY Shane territory. --Steelviper 07:06, 29 September 2006 (CDT)

Simple Answer, interactive java is disabled for now until 1.8. I'll revisit adding this then, but likly this will not be installed. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 10:18, 29 September 2006 (CDT)

Thank you for your answers. Pity, it would also be a good solution for spoiltext, if it could be configurated that way, that it is always closed, if any page is opened. It could also hide pictures and wikilinks, which is a problem at present. -- Tirkon 13:12, 29 September 2006 (CDT)

Standards and Conventions Adjustments[edit]

Please visit Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions to comment on film, TV and other citation formatting guidelines suggested for inclusion to the wiki policy. --Spencerian 10:51, 30 September 2006 (CDT)

Fanwanking[edit]

Seriously thinking about writing our own "essay" about it and why it should be avoid at all cost at Battlestar Wiki. Just something that can be referenced internally. Thoughts? --FrankieG 14:46, 1 October 2006 (CDT)

Good idea. Once you're done, dunk it in the Tank. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 15:39, 1 October 2006 (CDT)

By all means. --April Arcus 18:16, 1 October 2006 (CDT)

Huh? --BklynBruzer 22:11, 1 October 2006 (CDT)

Here is what Frankie's referring to. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 22:15, 1 October 2006 (CDT)

Oh, thanks Joe! And yeah, good idea Frankie. --BklynBruzer 22:31, 1 October 2006 (CDT)

You're very welcome. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 22:38, 1 October 2006 (CDT)

Here's what I have so far User:Gougef/Fanwanking. I know it's "harsh." --FrankieG 09:09, 2 October 2006 (CDT)

Looks great so far, actually. I want to crosslink with this and the Battlestar Wiki:Citation Jihad subsection on derived content to warn people not to confuse that with fanwankery, which is wholly unsubstantiated. I'll add a bit for that.--Spencerian 16:46, 2 October 2006 (CDT)

It's going a little far to say that fanwaking is completely forbidden. A certain amount of speculation is appropriate (take, for example, Articles of Colonization - the simplest explanation would be that the producers messed up referred to article 21 instead of 23 by mistake. However, the situation was different enough that Tyrol could plausibly have been invoking different rights in each case). It only becomes problematic when we concoct patently inplausible scenarios to excuse what are obviously production errors. --April Arcus 18:28, 2 October 2006 (CDT)

Want me to put it in the tink tank has a mutual proposal to be worked on? As a recovering fanwanker ;), I know I was probably being too harsh. Thanks for the great ideas. --FrankieG 18:40, 2 October 2006 (CDT)

Wiki up again[edit]

Just to let everyone know, the Wiki is up again. Basically had to restart the server since there was an error in MySQL; I don't know what exactly cause it, as of yet. If there are any other problems that may arise, please let me know. Thanks! -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 20:03, 7 October 2006 (CDT)

Science in the Re-imagined Series Reorganization[edit]

Please see the Talk:Science in the Re-imagined Series article for information and to add your comments on a major reorganization planned by me for these article and various articles. --Spencerian 11:12, 10 October 2006 (CDT)

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 In any case, I marked their [[Wikipedia:Battlestar|Battlestar]] article as a copyvio as it's almost a direct lift from [[Galactica type battlestar]]. What's to be done, or does anything really need to be done? --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 22:58, 27 September 2006 (CDT)
-:You are correct that the GFDL doesn't allow the inclusion of CC-BY-NC-SA content, and thus shouldn't be using our content. From a practical standpoint, however, I'm not particularly interested in pressing the issue. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 00:14, 28 September 2006 (CDT)
+:You are correct that the GFDL doesn't allow the inclusion of CC-BY-NC-SA content, and thus shouldn't be using our content. From a practical standpoint, however, I'm not particularly interested in pressing the issue. --[[User:April Arcus|April Arcus]] 00:14, 28 September 2006 (CDT)
 :You'll actually find that the [[Battlestar]] article does have some content which has been lifted from BSGWiki, however the majority is unrelated, i've removed the violation text while i rewrite it. I notice in the history youa re the primary contrib to the article for the RDM Galactica, If you wish you ould dual license your text under the GFDL allowing Wikipedia to reproduce any text you created. [[User:MatthewFenton|MatthewFenton]] 03:41, 28 September 2006 (CDT)
@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 Seriously thinking about writing our own "essay" about it and why it should be avoid at all cost at Battlestar Wiki. Just something that can be referenced internally. Thoughts? --[[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] 14:46, 1 October 2006 (CDT)
 : Good idea. Once you're done, dunk it in the Tank. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 15:39, 1 October 2006 (CDT)
-:By all means. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 18:16, 1 October 2006 (CDT)
+:By all means. --[[User:April Arcus|April Arcus]] 18:16, 1 October 2006 (CDT)
 :Huh? --[[User:BklynBruzer|BklynBruzer]] 22:11, 1 October 2006 (CDT)
 :: [[w:Fanwank|Here is what Frankie's referring to.]] -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 22:15, 1 October 2006 (CDT)
@@ Line 40: / Line 40: @@
 :::::Here's what I have so far [[User:Gougef/Fanwanking]]. I know it's "harsh." --[[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] 09:09, 2 October 2006 (CDT)
 ::::::Looks great so far, actually. I want to crosslink with this and the [[Battlestar Wiki:Citation Jihad]] subsection on derived content to warn people not to confuse that with fanwankery, which is wholly unsubstantiated. I'll add a bit for that.--[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 16:46, 2 October 2006 (CDT)
-:::::::It's going a little far to say that fanwaking is completely forbidden. A certain amount of speculation is appropriate (take, for example, [[Articles of Colonization]] - the simplest explanation would be that the producers messed up referred to article 21 instead of 23 by mistake. However, the situation was different enough that Tyrol could plausibly have been invoking different rights in each case). It only becomes problematic when we concoct patently inplausible scenarios to excuse what are obviously production errors. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 18:28, 2 October 2006 (CDT)
+:::::::It's going a little far to say that fanwaking is completely forbidden. A certain amount of speculation is appropriate (take, for example, [[Articles of Colonization]] - the simplest explanation would be that the producers messed up referred to article 21 instead of 23 by mistake. However, the situation was different enough that Tyrol could plausibly have been invoking different rights in each case). It only becomes problematic when we concoct patently inplausible scenarios to excuse what are obviously production errors. --[[User:April Arcus|April Arcus]] 18:28, 2 October 2006 (CDT)
 ::::::::Want me to put it in the tink tank has a mutual proposal to be worked on? As a recovering fanwanker ;), I know I was probably being too harsh. Thanks for the great ideas. --[[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] 18:40, 2 October 2006 (CDT)