Battlestar Wiki:Galactipedians Quorum/Archive2

Archive - Between April 15, 2006 and July 6, 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 3.

Screencaps

Just to notify people that I have all of Season 1 in HR-HDTV format (960x528 res), as well as Season 2 episodes 6 to 12 inclusive (960x540). If anyone wants me to take a screencap of any point in any particular episode, drop me a line at: kai (underscore) robinson (at) hotmail (dot) com

Cheers :) --Fordsierra4x4 15:13, 15 April 2006 (CDT)

Thank you for that most gracious offer. I am curious, though - what HDTV format has those dimensons? As I understand it, HDTV should be in either 720x1280 or in 1080x1920. 960x540 appears to be a quarter the resolution of a 1080i image, and the 960x528 dimensions (20:11 aspect ratio?) are even more confusing. --April Arcus 16:00, 15 April 2006 (CDT)

As far as i'm aware the 960x528's are actually slightly cropped from 960x540 to produce the actual picture as the HDTV version still has black bands on it (only just). This is due to them being capped in Australia from 'Network 10'. The 960x540's are indeed 50% reduction in vertical and horizontal res from the 1920x1080i, but thanks to the way that 'UniversalHD' have broadcast them, there are no black bands to crop off. I still have to wait to see if anyone manages to pull off capping BSG from SkyOne HD when it starts broadcasting later this year, although judging from the amount of proprietary DRM crap they'll use, its unlikely. Still, the offers open to all that want the caps that i've got. --Fordsierra4x4 20:52, 16 April 2006 (CDT)

I didn't mean to imply that they'd be unwelcome - obviously, even 960x540 will be considerably better than anything we have here currently. Feel free to browse the newly created Category:Screen captures requiring upgrade and upgrade any images which strike your fancy.--April Arcus 21:38, 16 April 2006 (CDT)

Wasnt taking it that way :P I noticed several categories for screenies for each ep, however, is there no place I can just upload a bunch of them to? If not on the wiki, then i'll create a separate directory on my webspace and post the URL for other more seasoned wiki veterans to upload... --Fordsierra4x4 00:37, 17 April 2006 (CDT)

Uploading images is pretty straightforward, all you need to do is pick a filename. They land in the appropriate categories automatically after you tag them. --April Arcus 00:39, 17 April 2006 (CDT)

Can't find a picture

I'm looking for a picture of the Pegasus' rail guns in Resurrection Ship Part II. Any picture showing the Pegasus firing would work.

How about the ones on Pegasus (RDM)#Equipment? --April Arcus 00:47, 17 April 2006 (CDT)

Sitenotice on Koenigrules vote

Anybody mind if I update Mediawiki:Sitenotice to draw attention to the vote underway at Battlestar Wiki talk:Citation Jihad#Koenigrules/Hollywood North Report? (Moreover, can we do this for any vote of public interest in the future, such as RFAs?) --April Arcus 22:04, 20 April 2006 (CDT)

I'm fine with this. These things do affect the wiki on a wide scale, after all.-- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 22:27, 20 April 2006 (CDT)

Done. I used a separate box since the Portal notice will probably continue to be relevant after this vote closes. --April Arcus 22:35, 20 April 2006 (CDT)

Great! -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 22:43, 20 April 2006 (CDT)

Battlestarwiki Deutsch

First of all, I'd like to thank all Battlestarwikipedians involved for creating the German Edition. But the pages can be edited by anyone, not just registered users. -- Astfgl 07:26, 22 April 2006 (CDT)

I'll fix that... :::rolls up sleeves::: -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 14:33, 22 April 2006 (CDT)

Fixed. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 14:44, 22 April 2006 (CDT)

Main Page Redesign

Hey all. Just for a heads up, I have been working on a Main Page redesign and will want your input before it does go live. The talk page (after you click the link above) brings you to the discussion. Also in the design are portals. The "look" is now working! So be sure to check out Battlestar Wiki:Portals to see some examples. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 15:00, 22 April 2006 (CDT)

I think you should change the names like "President's Docket" to stuff that's more functional or intuitive; we get a lot of newbies in using us purely as an encyclopedia and I think it should be as new-user friendly as possible. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 15:13, 22 April 2006 (CDT)

The top part needs some work; the large big box on top region; links to the quorum, other shows etc seem squeezed in; the quote of the day box needs some fixing for aesthetics. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 15:15, 22 April 2006 (CDT)

Proposed Policies

Category:Battlestar_Wiki_proposed_policies - I think we need to start going through this list and looking at these pages so they can be impemented or not with Community Consenus. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 11:37, 25 April 2006 (CDT)

Community Portal

If everyone can give input on what we should include on the Community Portal, we could get it up and fully running quicker! Thanks! --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 11:38, 25 April 2006 (CDT)

To get the ball rolling... Basically, the community portal should have links to the Quourm and the noticeboard in place. Also, while we're not a search engine service, we should list links to news sites, forums, and hot community spots. Additionally, the Community Portal should link to the Portals throughout the site as well. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 22:41, 1 May 2006 (CDT)

An apology regarding spokesmanship

As many of you have read, I recently offered an apology to Jim Iaccino (a.k.a. Koenigrules) on the behalf of the Battlestar Wiki community, for the comments of one of our members. This was shortly after I pointed out that it was inappropriate for any of us to speak as the sole voice of the wiki, and therefore makes my action extremely hypocritical.

I am fully aware that my status as an Administrator does not confer on me authority to act as a spokesperson for the wiki, and I apologize to any users here who may feel that I misrepresented them. In my defense, I will say that I felt it was a necessary step to restore civil discourse to a situation which was quickly escalating out of hand.

If Joe or the other admin staff feel that my action was inappropriate, I will abide by any disciplinary ruling they decide to issue. --April Arcus 21:22, 26 April 2006 (CDT)

Ah, I don't see it as more than a single faux pas. The end (apologing in proxy for others who personally insult someone to the point of slander on a internet site) justified the means (albeit unkosher). Given the harsh tone done by the contributors on the subject, I'd say it was the right thing to do. I don't feel you need to be busted down to take Mop Boy's job or anything (yet. ;) --Spencerian 14:20, 1 May 2006 (CDT)

I do not want to drag this up again as it was resolved, and I agree that it inappropriate for anyone to act as sole spokesperson. However, my accusation against KR was at the time a believe based on facts available to me at the time, and I believed in them. **However, when I got pointed towards more information which dispelled the belief I had developed because of the earlier one, and it was clearly established that KR was a reliable source, things changed: rather than flying into a rage or adamantly declaring that I was right and would "stay the course" despite all the info, I changed my position, admitted my positiion was wrong (as there were things I didn't know) and appologized, and retracted the whole thing. This was resolved, and to be honest, more amicably than I had hoped. More to the point, before KR responded everyone here voted that they agreed with my (previous) position. I think this was all just a bad incident we need to learn from, developing our spoilers tags more and so forth, and I think we're making good progress discussing that. The kinks a Wiki site going through as it grows and becomes a mature full fledged site. At no time did I feel that Peter is or has been out of line; he needs give no appology :) officer and a gentleman all the way. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 14:38, 1 May 2006 (CDT)

Peter, I have no problem with what you did. If I had problems with what you did, you would have known well before now. The problem was solved and everyone came to an agreement. Kudos! -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 22:21, 1 May 2006 (CDT)

Nevertheless, it needed to be said for the benefit of the community in general. I'm glad this whole situation is close to resolution. --April Arcus 22:41, 1 May 2006 (CDT)

I'm happy it's done too: now we can get back to serious work; painstakingly transcribing Ron Moore's drunken podcast ramblings after 100's of hours of manpower. :) --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 23:32, 1 May 2006 (CDT)

User Feedback

We, the editors of Battlestar Wiki, quickly become versed in the ways of Wiki-code. However, a great many of the users of this site lack such knowledge, and don't really want/need to learn it in order to use the site. The only problem with this (other than losing out on potential contributors), is that we don't really get feedback from them. Mazzy recently left some feedback on the main page redesign, and I thanked her for the feedback off-wiki, where she pointed out this problem. Does anybody have any ideas on ways that we could solicit feedback from users without having to use the "edit" button and wikicode? Maybe some sort of a simple javascript form or such that allows (even non-logged in users?) to post thoughts/suggestions? It'd be ripe for vandalism, but I'd like to hear from "the people". --Steelviper 14:02, 1 May 2006 (CDT)

One option: Starbuck, the head honcho over at the Galactica BS forum has offered that forum as a possible place for getting feedback about the wiki. I told her I would convey the offer here. (I wasn't acting as a spokesman, but just was brainstorming with Mazzy and Starbuck offered.) --Steelviper 14:13, 1 May 2006 (CDT)

Excellent. PaperBagPrincess (a.k.a. Starbuck) rocks. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 14:39, 1 May 2006 (CDT)

Not a bad idea, and it prevents spamming email boxes or wikis. I'd be interested in Joe's take. Are our portals useable as chat boards? --Spencerian 14:22, 1 May 2006 (CDT)

Unfortunately (or fortunately?) the portals are bound by the same restrictions as any other article. It's just a pattern for laying out the content. I was thinking maybe a javascript form with a simple text box, but when Starbuck offered I thought it was an interesting idea. The wiki's weakest area is in simple communication, and partnering with a message board (run by us or otherwise) might allow us to help overcome that deficit. --Steelviper 14:29, 1 May 2006 (CDT)

I own a vBullitien lience with no "forum" to hold it on. Though I think that it is great to "chat", alot of the Wiki stuff must happen on the Wiki because it's easy to link to different areas. However, we should not use a sperate outside "community" forum. I would be willing to donate my licence for use on Joe's server. (http://forum.battlestarwiki.org/) which could be intergrated with the Wiki "user" database so that you would not have to create a sperate user database. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 17:02, 1 May 2006 (CDT)

Well I figure I should throw this in, Shane has a valid point about not being a public forum. Starbuck assured me it could be done privately and if you needed external mods from our site we could help (there are those who have little wiki contact) but you could also do the admin stuff yourself. I dunno exactly what you are looking for but I think a place where non article discussions and feedback could be handled in a more user friendly and easily moderated place would have a positive impact. Guests can log in and comment as well. I personally am just learning the administrative functions but the board that Shane mentioned and the Invision power board formats would be adaptable to your needs. -- Mazzy 17:18, 1 May 2006 (CDT)

While I do appreciate PaperBagPrincess/Starbuck's offer of hosting a board, I would like to keep everything centralized to avoid confusion and duplication of efforts -- were we to go through with a bulletin board idea. The sole concern I have at this time is the fact that I believe that wiki communication should stay on the Wiki as much as possible. It's nice to solicit feedback from users, but I would like to keep it contained in one place, so that all can benefit from the conversations. (OTOH, I believe that the Wiki is for all the fandom, and they deserve the right to be heard as well.) Thus, while I'm obviously a bit leery of using bulletin boards, I would be willing to have Shane set up such a board. I figure that, even if it doesn't work out, we can always pull the plug later. Thoughts? -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 22:17, 1 May 2006 (CDT)

Well I think that's the concept of having talk pages and such but I think PBP's help would be good; I don't really think we should make a dedicated BSWiki forum. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 23:30, 1 May 2006 (CDT)

You're exactly right that talk pages should be the place for feedback. However leaving feedback requires:

1. Creating an account (which isn't all that hard if your name is 114167580 or whatever).
2. Editing the talk page.

I'm just afraid that the time/effort behind accomplishing both of those goes beyond what some users (who might have some good, valid feedback ideas) are willing to put forth in order to leave a comment. The path of least resistance, in this case, is "lurking". I didn't mean to start a revolution. (Well... Ok. Maybe a little bit.) Maybe we're just talking something as simple as a javascript form that guests could post through comments to a specific talk page under some sort of a "guest" account. --Steelviper 07:51, 2 May 2006 (CDT)

In lieu of a message board, I remembered something I came across earlier when I was looking to see what extensions we could use on BSG Wiki. It's an extension for input boxes and it was initially designed to add data to WikiNews. I don't know how well it will work, but if Shane can test it out on the Hangar Bay, then we can determine whether or not this is a method to solicit feedback anonymously from our lurkers. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 11:20, 2 May 2006 (CDT)

I just looked at the ext. so I will test it out. I think the only problem with the item is that it is an input box and it does not have the ability to "connect" with a block of comment like we do with :. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 12:00, 2 May 2006 (CDT)

"Battlestar Wiki Friends" section

Moved from User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 22:46, 7 May 2006 (CDT)

I'm not sure if you'll go for this, but I thought I'd ask anyway. Our 'site' isn't so much a site as it is a chat room. What would you think about a link in the friend box? We already link back to the BSG Wiki in the chat's topic line, and I'd be happy to add your thumb thingy (although it doesn't seem to exist yet) to the page that leads to the chat. ~ Aero 22:30, 7 May 2006 (CDT)

If you had stayed just a minute longer, I'd have noticed you ;) ~ Aero 22:43, 7 May 2006 (CDT)

I just popped in to look around; not much for chatrooms myself. :-) -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 22:46, 7 May 2006 (CDT)

This is something I prefer to leave up to the community. As for the thumb image, that's more User:Shane's (and Mercifull's department, so I'll leave it in their hands. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 22:46, 7 May 2006 (CDT)

What is a policy?

I have submited my ideas on the Battlestar Wiki:Policy page. I would like comments and change suggestions. Or if you like it as it is, that would be great because we should get this policy page up asap. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 21:06, 15 May 2006 (CDT)

Binomial nomenclature for ships

Quite a few ships of The Fleet appear to be named with two-part designations from some non-english language:

• Baah Pakal
• Daru Mozu
• Embla Brokk
• Fanu Sadin
• Kimba Huta
• Mutem Wia

There's been a lot of interest in the source of these names, and consequently a lot of half-baked etymological speculation. Would it make sense to have one centralized page listing these names and (sensible, well-cited) conjectures about their origin? --April Arcus 10:18, 16 May 2006 (CDT)

I'd be interested to see that, whether it be a "ship name etymology" article, or just a subsection or subpage of "The Fleet". If it were limited to just the actual ship pages I doubt they would be likely to be seen. --Steelviper 10:27, 16 May 2006 (CDT)

In general, I'd think a note on the ship's page about the source of a name (Diomedes, for example) should be adequate. The reason I think these might deserve a page of their own is that on the surface at least, they all appear to be named based on a similar and non-obvious convention. --April Arcus 10:40, 16 May 2006 (CDT)

Requested Articles

I've noticed Shane has been creating a number of new articles recently using the {{requested}} template. I personally think that unless we're going to had at least a brief description - that is, a {{stub}}, it's better to leave such articles empty, so that the red links alert other browsers to the need for such articles. A casual browser seeing a yellow link to one of these new pages would probably never follow that link to see that it's essentially empty, nor realize that their contribution could be valuable. --April Arcus 00:22, 17 May 2006 (CDT)

I concur. Redlinks are a valuable tool for drawing people's attention to non-existant articles. --Day ^{(Talk - Admin)} 23:18, 6 June 2006 (CDT)

"Relationships" Article

A comment over on the FA debate got me thinking about the type of articles we have. A lot of articles/content I contribute to tend towards the technical/scientific/etc. However, being a character-driven drama, there's a lot of "emotional stuff" that could actually be encyclopedically documented. For example, a "Relationships" article, documenting different pairs (or potential pairs) and cited episode content to document the relationship/attraction. Potentially, some of these winks, nudges, nods, might turn into something (if RDM is trying to prepare the audience) so it might be used in forecasting, but at the very least it could be used to document incidents that led up to established relationships (for those that didn't keep up or follow that particular thread). Cally-Tyrol might be an example of something that might have surprised someone who hadn't been watching closely for that. This seems like a great way that "Shippers" could contribute to the wiki. --Steelviper 09:25, 6 June 2006 (CDT)

Well, SV I really think that would veer away into messageboard territory. I mean, besides we've already got a section of Ethinicity in the Colonies dealing with relationships plus indicating who's expressed interaction with people. I think it would be difficult to document, and I'm sorry but it just seems like we shouldn't do that; I mean Memory Alpha doesn't. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 09:28, 6 June 2006 (CDT)

True. They don't, but then Trek tended to be a lot less driven by those factors. I think this is something worth considering, at least. Though I think it would take some diligence to keep it from devolving into slash fic. Maybe we should only get into things that actually turned into something (like Cally/Tyrol), so as not to feed the fires of fanfic. --Day ^{(Talk - Admin)} 23:21, 6 June 2006 (CDT)

I don't see the need for this either. Relationships are currently discussed on character bio pages and within the context of the race article - do we have anything interesting to say about relationships on BSG in general? They all seem very conventional. There are no weird Minbari Mating Rituals to document, for example. --April Arcus 01:22, 7 June 2006 (CDT)

I tend to agree with Peter, although we shouldn't discount the weirdness that happens when anyone on this show hooks up. From half-robobabies, glowing spines, and ghosts, it's something to talk about, although I'll be damned if I know what to say beyond what we have already. --Spencerian 12:16, 12 June 2006 (CDT)

Quorum Definintion

This should be for questions only and not ideas. If everything was "moderated" there would be no BW:BOLD or "Good Faith". This underminds the purpose of implemiting new ideas. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 14:01, 10 June 2006 (CDT)

I think the idea is... "being bold" would be coming up with cool new data box/category/what have you that could go on every character page. You'd still "be bold" to go ahead an implement it for one character, to show how it would look. It would be "reckless" to go ahead an implement the new widget on every character page on the wiki without feedback. What happens if you post something here, or on the new widget's talk page, or elsewhere soliciting feedback and you don't get any? (I know that happens sometimes, and it can be frustrating.) Maybe try to actively engage some of the "regulars" on their talk page, inviting them to weigh in on a topic. Is it slower? Most definitely. However, in the process of building consensus you're bringing others "on board", investing them in the project. You'll likely have helping hands for implementing whatever gets sorted out (and it may even be exactly what you proposed). I think the main distinction falls between "implementing" the new ideas (creating the widgets, proposing formatting standards/changes, etc) and doing all the grunt work to make them happen. Energetic and active posters are vital to the health of the wiki. We just need to make sure that we use good judgement and establish consensus as to where we direct all that energy and activity. Together our potential is limited only by our imagination (and sometimes by whatever version of Mediawiki we're running). --Steelviper 08:13, 12 June 2006 (CDT)

What SV said. Besides, by alerting others to your idea, you might get some pointers to do it better or improve your idea...and even save a bit of work as the tasks are delegated. Very few articles (or components thereof) in our wiki are sole projects by one contributor. --Spencerian 12:19, 12 June 2006 (CDT)

DVD titles.

At the moment the DVD information pages are a little messed up and the content is confusing because they differ from America to Europe but sre still on the same pages in some cases. Here is a list of all the DVD pages

• Miniseries DVD Covers both the American and European versions on the same page
• Season 1 DVD Covers both the American and European versions on the same page
• Season 2.0 DVD Just the Region 1 American version
• Season 2 DVD Just the Region 1,4 Version for Europe and Australia
• Season 2.5 DVD Just the Region 1 American version

I think that a new naming convention should be in place. Season X DVD (Region #) eg Season 1 DVD (Region 1) for the American version of the first series DVD's. I think this would save a lot more confusion in the long term as some pages have information on two different sets of DVDs on one page whearas the 2.0, 2.5 and 2 have more specific information which I belive is better.

I therefor propose a new naming convention with linking pages to direct people with one page summarising all the DVD's together.

Support

• Support: As explained above --Mercifull 04:25, 26 June 2006 (CDT)

Oppose

• Oppose: No, I think our current DVD's should retain their current names, and a new separate page be made that says "Season 2 DVD (UK version) or something"--->My point being that it's not a widespread enough thing that it justifies giving the other DVD's confusing titles. I mean we've got "Scar" and then "Scar (Raider)" to set the two apart, because that's only 2 things, while there's nothing named just "Resistance" now but "Resistance (episode)", etc. because it's a big change. Long story short, I think we could make a UK DVD page but it's not worth moving around and changing the names on the current ones. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 07:39, 26 June 2006 (CDT)

The UK version is the same as the Aussie version which is why I suggested putting the regions in brackets instead of (UK) or (US version). The season 1 dvd page is a mess right now --Mercifull 07:48, 26 June 2006 (CDT)

Archiving the Wikipedian Quorum

I think this page could do with a little bit of archiving. Theres a lot of old stuff here thats not relevant anymore and It could do with being a bit smaller to enable more up to date conversations to take place. --Mercifull 04:31, 26 June 2006 (CDT)

Featured Article and Featured Picture

We should probably figure out what we want to do as far as identifying a featured article and featured picture for July(ish). The picture appears to have a clear favorite, but we could use some more candidates/debate/revision regarding an article. --Steelviper 15:51, 6 July 2006 (CDT)

Re-imagined Series definition: Battlestar Group ^{(TRS: "Water")}. It also doubles as an acronym for the television series itself.

Re-imagined Series definition: visual indicator used in a battlestar's Instrument Landing System during a hands-on approach ^{(TRS: "Miniseries", "Act of Contrition", "Final Cut", "Black Market")}