Toggle menu
Toggle personal menu
Not logged in
Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits.

Battlestar Wiki talk:Episode Standardization

Discussion page of Battlestar Wiki:Episode Standardization
Revision as of 18:04, 24 July 2006 by Shane (talk | contribs) (Structure Change)

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 Epsisode 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 breakened up. I am suggestiong this format change for the "headings".

  • DISMG
  • EPISODE TEMPLATE
  • == OVERVIEW == - The "small text"
  • == OVERALL SUMMARY == - Two/Three paragraphs explaning 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 Futher Analysis of X using a {{seealso}} template. If we created this ont he 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)