More actions
Does anybody think we should upload an image of an actual toaster to illustrate this page? I know a lot of the contributors here seem to be fairly serious individuals, but if someone could do it I think it would be cute. Just a pic of an actual chrome toaster - it'll be great, I think.
- Jzanjani 21:41, 7 October 2005 (EDT)
I've found one that's nondescript enough: (which was removed and uploaded to the Wiki--Spencerian)
Spencerian, do what you've got to do!
- Jzanjani 21:45, 7 October 2005 (EDT)
Adorable. --Peter Farago 22:06, 7 October 2005 (EDT)
The Toaster is watching all of us, and waiting for its time to return home. Spencerian 22:27, 7 October 2005 (EDT)
- I really think the character box itself is overboard and must go, though the other in article stuff as well as picture can stay.---Ricimer, October 8, 2005
- Yeah, okay. --Peter Farago 10:48, 8 October 2005 (EDT)
- The character box is perfect for a page that's certainly never going to grow larger. It's arguably the most humorous article we have. I think it really livens up the thing, especially considering it's supposed to be a racial epiphet. Silly page, right? Before we ransack it, let it sit for a bit and get a group consensus. If the majority's a bit too anal about it, we make the change. Spencerian 11:41, 8 October 2005 (EDT)
- It was only meant to be a word defination page, exactly like the "frak" page. We are not trying to "liven things up" so much as we are striving for accuracy.---Ricimer, October 8, 2005
- You have a point, albeit tenuous for this one page. Let's let consensus work here for a few days. If Peter, of ALL people, finds the site humorous enough to create a category for future pages, then others may find it enjoyable enough. Besides, the information there remains accurate, and a BSG toaster "is" really a Cylon (just not the bread-using kind). And, frankly, Ricimer, I know this article was good for me as you and Jzanjani's antics haven't made me laugh much in the last few days. I don't know, maybe the "frak" page could use a little levity...heh-heh. And, let's see what Joe says about it. Spencerian 12:02, 8 October 2005 (EDT)
- It was only meant to be a word defination page, exactly like the "frak" page. We are not trying to "liven things up" so much as we are striving for accuracy.---Ricimer, October 8, 2005
- The character box is perfect for a page that's certainly never going to grow larger. It's arguably the most humorous article we have. I think it really livens up the thing, especially considering it's supposed to be a racial epiphet. Silly page, right? Before we ransack it, let it sit for a bit and get a group consensus. If the majority's a bit too anal about it, we make the change. Spencerian 11:41, 8 October 2005 (EDT)
Our Silly Pages should be rare
Not that our wiki should have too many of these as it defeats the informative nature of our site, but, damn, if you haven't clicked on the article link for Cylons on Unencylopedia, please do so. That is the ANTI-wiki site where misinformation is not only allowed, but encouraged. I think I busted a tear gland reading a couple of entries there. --Spencerian 18:06, 25 October 2005 (EDT)
- Those are hilarious "articles," thanks for the heads up on that one. It may have been a Freudian slip, however, I think you meant UnenCYCLOpedia, not UnenCYLO(N)pedia. ;) --Mason 23:33:25, 2005-10-25 (EDT)
- Wow...didn't realize I did that....I'm spending way too much time in here.... Spencerian 10:31, 26 October 2005 (EDT)
The Latest Additions
...In particular, the picture of the toaster with the red-eye indicator, are just too frakking funny. Made me laugh on a day where laughter is very hard to come by; thanks Kahran and Joe. --Spencerian 10:42, 27 January 2006 (EST)
A Call for Standards
I propose that this page be reverted to the edit on 02:09, 8 October 2005. I have before expressed my personal belief that while certain of our "extra" articles may be fun (drinking games and such), turning this actual term from the series into a "silly" article has added nothing to it. The crux of it, is that as BSWiki editors, it is our responsibility to strive for accuracy, Non-POV statements, etc. "Toaster" is an actual term on the series. Making changes to it has shown that we have fallen away from our own high standards. At least, the high standards that I would like us to maintain, if I were in a position to do so.
Further: The two chief supporters of this current version seem to be Spencerian and Peter Farago; Joe never commented on it one way or the other. Enough time has passed that we must re-evaluate the current consensus as to its fate, and then we must obey the Will of the Consensus. --->We need to assess how the current community stands on this: troll Jzanjani has been banned repeatedly, and if his ban has expired, he has chosen not to return here for months. Meanwhile, Users Day and SteelViper ascended to Administrator status well after the last time there was serious discussion as to the standardized form of this page, which would leave 2 Administrators for the current version, 2 Administrators whose views are unknown, and 1 Bureaucrat, Joe, who's view is either unknown, or he abstained. This decision must be made, and for the sake of accuracy, and the long-term standards which this wiki hopes to uphold, I for one support returning it to a standardized article. 5 by 5. --The Merovingian 04:42, 20 February 2006 (EST)
- I don't think that our status as administrator should have anything to do with the matter. All it means is that we've got that little "delete" button above this article, and that's not even what is being proposed. If Spencerian's or Peter's opinions carry any more weight around here than others it is more due to their reputations as editors than anything else (at least that's how it is for me). As for being in a position to maintain high standards... I think you're very much in a position to do so. Not only through the use of the "edit" button on the articles, but also through establishing consensus on talk pages (exactly like you are doing now).
- Since I'm here, though, I guess I'll share my opinion on this article. I like the middle stuff (actual use of the word within the series, with citations). While I'm not above ocassional silliness (I should delete at some point), links within the main article space should probably maintain the encyclopedic standards (in terms of S&C, and Citation Jihad). Perhaps a compromise could be reached, whereby a silly version of the page is linked to from here, but where the main article linked to by the main namespace would lead to the canon material. There's nothing wrong with a silly page now and again, but a user should probably know that they are going to be entering the silliness before they click on it, and I'm not sure that would be clear if you were just following a link to "Toaster". --Steelviper 14:45, 20 February 2006 (EST)
- The reason I made a proposal in talk, Steelviper, was because I had previously tried to edit this page some months ago, and was voted down. I decided that enough time had passed that consensus might have changed, and to be polite and follow proper etiquette, I therefore made the proposal above. 5 by 5.--The Merovingian 19:56, 20 February 2006 (EST)