Battlestar Wiki talk:Episode Standardization

Shane, as was my understanding there wasn't a call for making a new standardization project, so much as a call to reinforce our old ones. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 17:03, 23 July 2006 (CDT)

Battlestar Wiki talk:Think Tank/Episode Standardization well 8 support votes including 6 admins... --Mercifull ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 17:32, 23 July 2006 (CDT)

Yeah I supported that but isn't that a drive for enforcing old rules, not a new project? Or, well I guess the Citation Jihad is like that actually; enforcing the existing rules...--The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 17:42, 23 July 2006 (CDT)

Would it be better and less confusing to rename this page 'Episode Standardization' to match the project agreed on? I wish that I had originally came up with a better project name. --FrankieG 18:49, 23 July 2006 (CDT)

Yeah, that's good; making stuff standardized to S&C --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 18:52, 23 July 2006 (CDT)

I'm sorry, I was really fuzzy when I wrote that first thing and I don't know why I didn't understand it. Of course: when a "Think Tank" proposal goes through and passes, of course it becomes a "project". Sorry about that fuzziness; beer is a wonderful and mysterious thing. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 21:10, 23 July 2006 (CDT)

Initial Project Groundwork

I laid down some initial groundwork for the project page (rather unilaterally, but in keeping with the spirit of the TANK proposal). Feel free to modify as needed. --Steelviper 08:21, 24 July 2006 (CDT)

Archetype Candidates

1. Pegasus (episode)

Note: Feel free to add candidates and discuss.

Based on his edits here, I believe Merv was proposing "Colonial Day" as a potential archetype candidate.--Steelviper 08:21, 24 July 2006 (CDT)

• Well, yes and no. Colonial Day is an example of the worst case, episode most needing standardization, which was then "fixed" to a good standard; good "before and after" example is what I mean. However, I think a lot of Season 2 episodes are better "archetypes", off the top of my head I'd say "Pegasus (episode)".--The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 12:01, 24 July 2006 (CDT)

• Deviations from the norm: Season 2 is actually fine, I've looked it over. It's season 1 that had a problem: this guy called "Ernestborg9" made his OWN Reviews on each episode (What exactly "Analysis" was was poorly defined at this early point). Then there's the Miniseries: that's a special case. I'm not sure how to approach that myself, though I think it should be as standard as any article and needs lots of fixes. I'm on to Season One now...--The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 12:04, 24 July 2006 (CDT)

Structure Change

In our mighty template {{subst:Episode Guide}} for quick and dirty Episode creations, I am driving tot he fact that we have great structure, but not that great. On the BW:POD project we use Act 1 through 4 (not 6), because that's how the Podcasts are breaked up. I am suggesting this format change for the "headings".

• DISMG (if any)
• EPISODE TEMPLATE
• == OVERVIEW == - The "small text"
• == OVERALL SUMMARY == - Two/Three paragraphs explaining what happened through the acts
• == ACT 1 == (Paragraph Style)
• == ACT 2 == (Paragraph Style)
• == ACT 3 == (Paragraph Style)
• == ACT 4 == (Paragraph Style)
• == GUEST STARS ==
• == Analysis == - If this section got to long we should create Further Analysis of X using a {{seealso}} template. If we created this on the main episode page it would be in paragraph form of a quick summary of what we are looking at.
• == Notes ==
• == Worthy Dialogue == - Not to much
• SEASON TEMPLATE

Inside the "Acts" we would have those act questions at the end in === Questions ===

• Official Statements - Move to Sources namespace
• Worthy Dialogue - if this also got to long maybe in the Quotes namespace - Quotes:Epsiode Name

Anyway... feel free to edit the structure idea. :) --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 13:04, 24 July 2006 (CDT)

• We don't need any new templates. Instead of "Overall Summary" we can just say "Summary" as we have already been. The only change we might want to do is what Memory Alpha, the Star Trek Wiki, does where they break up the Summary according to Act breaks, such as for this page for What You Leave Behind. No, we should keep our Summary section in easy-to-read bulleted lists, instead of Paragraph Style.--The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 13:13, 24 July 2006 (CDT)

One thing the bulleted summary items buy you is modularity. It's easy to add/remove bullets, where paragraph format requires the use of "writing skills" to make substantial changes. (Not that that's a bad thing to have when contributing to a wiki.) Also I feel the bullets tend to encourage concision, since it is easier to detect rambling when it is out in a bullet. I do like the idea of examining the Analysis section, and figuring out EXACTLY what we want to have in there (as well as discussing the possibility of breaking it out if it gets long). --Steelviper 13:17, 24 July 2006 (CDT)

Could be bullets at the start, but once a episode is done with, i.e. 33, I am sure we could change it into prose. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 13:20, 24 July 2006 (CDT)

No, this would be more confusing. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 13:29, 24 July 2006 (CDT)

Project Scope

Shane, your proposal is significantly different from what Episode Standardization is meant to be (enforcing existing rules) that you shoudl bring it up in the Think Tank as a separate proposal. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 13:14, 24 July 2006 (CDT)

• I don't think it is, otherwise I would have brought it up there. I already said about the ACT breaks ups above and there is no new template to create. They are already here. {{subst:Episode Guide}}. This makes episodes standerized. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 13:19, 24 July 2006 (CDT)

I don't think it's too out of line to take a second to examine the existing rules before we go forth and apply them. It would be foolish to blindly apply rules that could be improved before making signficant changes. That's why I wanted to try to identify the archetype to see if the existing rules should be honed. --Steelviper 13:20, 24 July 2006 (CDT)

Correct SteelViper: We're just changing things to make them match "Colonial Day" and "Pegasus (episode)", etc. Shane: yes, this is significantly different from the scope of the project. The scope of this project is "make episodes match our standard format": if you want to change the actual format, you should bring it up as a Think Tank proposal: that's the entire concept behing creating the Think Tank function. --->These are not gigantic changes you are proposing, it's just that if you want to switch from bullets to prose you should suggest it elsewhere. No reason for a new "Worhty Dialogue" thing; our current Official Statements and Noteworthy dialoge stuff is fine.--The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 13:31, 24 July 2006 (CDT)

If you want, we could move this discussion to Standards and Conventions Talk, Shane. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 13:37, 24 July 2006 (CDT)

I want it to stay here because it deals with this subject. Also I think doing massive edits is really not a good idea until we get it stright on how things should flow from this project. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 13:38, 24 July 2006 (CDT)

Scifi.com stuff

Some of the early Season 1 episodes have both "Summary from Scifi.com" and "External Links: (this episode) on Scifi.com" in them: I think we should remove one or both of these, as the external links thing is a link to the summary. Thoughts?--The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 13:40, 24 July 2006 (CDT)

remove it or move it to the source namespace (ref) --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 13:47, 24 July 2006 (CDT)

The Scifi.com summary should be at most a crutch for when we don't have a summary generated ourselves. Keeping the link is fine, but the text becomes redundant after we've got the episode summary hammered out. Plus having potentially copyrighted text (with the summary) intermingled with our creative commons stuff isn't that consistent. With that regard I'd be happier ONLY providing the link (even when we don't have the text summary of our own generated). --Steelviper 13:48, 24 July 2006 (CDT)