Battlestar Wiki:Galactipedians Quorum

This page is one of Battlestar Wiki's many projects. This page serves to coordinate discussion on a particular aspect of this Wiki. The formal recommendations of a project may be treated as policies.

Welcome, newcomers and baffled oldtimers! If you have a question about Battlestar Wiki and how it works, please place it at the bottom of the list, and someone will attempt to answer it for you. (If you have a question about life, the universe and everything, go to the reference desk instead.)

Before asking a question, check if it's answered by the Battlestar Wiki:FAQ or other pages linked from Battlestar Wiki:Help.

Before answering a newcomer's question abruptly, consider rereading Please do not bite the newcomers.

Questions and answers will not remain on this page indefinitely (otherwise it would very soon become too long to be editable). After a period of time with no further activity, information will be moved to other relevant sections of Battlestar Wiki (such as the FAQ pages) or placed in one of the Wikipedian Quorum archives if it is of general interest, or deleted. Please consider dating and titling your discussions so as to facilitate this.

Ask a new question or begin a new discussion by clicking here

• Archive 1 (December 3, 2005 to April 12, 2006):

Need help with a new article namespace, Colonel Tigh / Colonel Tye historical connection in TOS?, Cast Data infobox?, The Kitt Joke, When Earth is found..., A proposal, Server time is wrong, Wikipedia user box, Battlestar Galactica Model Kits, error on Battlestar Wiki:Help, Talk pages for actors?, Fatal error, The spam filter, Peabody award, BSG in the Comics, Season 2.0 and 2.5 DVD, Spoiler policy,

• Archive 2 (April 15, 2006 to June 12, 2006):

Screencaps, Can't find a picture, Sitenotice on Koenigrules vote, Battlestarwiki Deutsch, Main Page Redesign, Proposed Policies, Community Portal, An apology regarding spokesmanship, User Feedback, "Battlestar Wiki Friends" section, What is a policy?, Binomial nomenclature for ships, Requested Articles, "Relationships" Article,

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)

Scifi.com

For the record, btw, as many of you may know from the messageboards, I think the Scifi.com is poorly run and (unlike Ron Moore) doesn't really try to "connect with the fans", as they claim (the messageboards are a laughingstock of poor moderating, the Battlestar website hasn't been updated in a full year, they only post up Ron's blog and podcasts but that's more Ron's doing than theirs...plus Mrs.Ron tells us that Ron has supplied several new podcasts to them that they simply haven't put up). Anyway, Scifi Weekly on their front page has a "review a website" thing and I mailed in a "Hey, why not review BattlestarWiki?" request. To be honest, I think they would view us as competition with their abortive, and, also pathetically laughable wiki attempt, Scifipedia (I can't even log in). --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 13:03, 13 July 2006 (CDT)

As much as I fear and despise redundancy as a computer scientist, I really don't have a problem with the Scifipedia. One has only to type in a few basic search words (major characters, episode names, etc.) to see that it really isn't trying to compete with a specialized wiki like this one. They have one big summary article about BSG, and that's about it. I don't view it so much as a rivalry as an entity with an entirely different mission. They're trying to cover a much broader spectrum by covering "Scifi"... especially since that now apparently includes the world of professional wrestling. --Steelviper 13:08, 13 July 2006 (CDT)

Oh no I don't view them as a rival: I'd like it if they were up and running as a succesful wiki. The reason for my contempt is that the clowns at Scifi.com don't run it well and it's loaded with technical problems. Basically I couldn't log in (they have many log in problems) and their "response" was "well, if you want we could delete your current account"...um, I'm not giving up an over 4,000 post screename for that, and it wasn't much of a "solution". Only the latest in a long string of frustrations--The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 13:12, 13 July 2006 (CDT)

My fear is that the "clowns" are just barely plural. What if the only people running the site are Admin and the much maligned Admin1. Maybe Scifi just underestimates how much manpower it takes to maintain an online presence in this day and age. I'd prefer to imagine their problems as being caused by massing staffing/funding shortages. I guess I just don't want to believe that a properly funded and staffed web team could run a site so poorly. --Steelviper 13:16, 13 July 2006 (CDT)

Some people have said there's a marked difference between "Admin" and "Admin1", and alothough I realize that they are 2 separate people, I've not noticed a difference; there is?--The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 13:37, 13 July 2006 (CDT)

I've not had interactions with either, so I can't testify one way or the other. However the ip of "Admin" seems based out of NYC, while "Admin1" appears to hail from Seattle (I realize proxies can fool this, but most people don't bother). Also, the "note from the admin" (excerpted below) says you can pm either of them. They've just never seemed... responsive or communicative, which has really damaged the situation. --Steelviper 13:49, 13 July 2006 (CDT)

"The Battlestar BBoard will be monitored by site administrators throughout the day. If you see a post that you feel violates the rules above, send a private message to "admin" or "admin1" and it will be reviewed. Our decisions regarding what constitutes a violation will be subjective, and will err on the side of free and open discussion, but we will not tolerate openly hostile or abusive behavior.

As always, if you have any suggestions for how we can improve our message boards, we'd love to hear them. E-mail us directly at bboard@www.scifi.com."

Is that really what it says? "bboard@www.scifi.com"? That's... I mean--That doesn't look like a valid email address to me. Now, granted, I'm not a piece of email-related software, so I could be wrong, but I've never see "www" in an email addy before. Weird. --Day ^{(Talk - Admin)} 14:12, 13 July 2006 (CDT)

I just copy and pasted. But yeah, that struck me as odd as well. Maybe "Admin" (who is the one that made that post) isn't that web-savvy.--Steelviper 14:36, 13 July 2006 (CDT)

That email address is the default email address for any "webserver" running aphace webserver. It's sad. That email address gets not only reports from errors produced, but any error that occurs on the system. Maybe we should take advantage of the situation? --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 14:44, 13 July 2006 (CDT)

I'm not about to be run off of Skiffy just because of incompetant Administrators. The answer to trolls attacking you is never to simply ignore them: tell that to Czechoslovakia circa 1939. Not reacting to trolls, not punishing them, simply emboldens them. The answer is to fight back: get Moderators to step in, and if a website doesn't have Moderators, demand that Moderators get appointed until they are. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 14:49, 13 July 2006 (CDT)

I seen that request on SciFi and it doesn't seem to be working, yet you all stay anyway. At least with a forum that we, as regular wiki users, could easily manage 1000 to 2000 users on a forum that we ran our selfs with rules that are more enforceable because it's user run. You arn't going to get it on SciFi.com unless they are willing to hire (paid employees) because it's a company website. I have yet to see any comapny allow any "user" run moderator on their "company" forums. Ok.. off for a a haircut. I'll be back. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 15:00, 13 July 2006 (CDT)

If I wanted to use a "safe" BSG forum I could simply go to Ragnar Anchorage or HangarDeck5. What I want is Scifi.com: that's where Ron and Mrs.Ron are. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 15:02, 13 July 2006 (CDT)

Merv, would you like to see an "active" use of the forums on how they can be setup? I would tell you think link, but I need assurance that the link not be given out to the public. I would send the link to you via email. Staying where Ron and Mrs. Ron are fine if you stay in contact with them to ask them questions. I am just offering another alternative to Ragnar Anchorage or HangarDeck5 or even SciFi.com "general" discussion. I would like our forum idea not to be dismissed based on the fact that it would be a startup. Being a webmaster and former server administrator I seen sites jump in activity just because of forums. Wouldn't that be nice? --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 16:57, 13 July 2006 (CDT)

Maybe we should move the above discussion to the Quorum, since it's more general in nature (and really hasn't involved Spence at all)?--Steelviper 15:07, 13 July 2006 (CDT)

Done.--The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 15:14, 13 July 2006 (CDT)

Shouldnt the discussion about a forum go on the Think Tank? --Mercifull ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 03:30, 14 July 2006 (CDT)

Re-imagined Series definition: initial skills training; can refer to basic military indoctrination, and arms and ground training ^{(TRS: "Fragged")}; and basic flight training ^{(TRS: "Miniseries")}

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

Re-imagined Series definition: the process of using the FTL engines to make an near-instantaneous apparent faster-than-light transport of a ship from one point in space to another