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

Battlestar Wiki:Quality Articles/New Caprican loco weed

From Battlestar Wiki, the free, open content Battlestar Galactica encyclopedia and episode guide
Revision as of 17:55, 22 May 2007 by JubalHarshaw (talk | contribs) (→‎Suggestions: - thoughts on "quality silly")
This discussion is about New Caprican loco weed's proposed Quality Article status.
This discussion is being used to help the New Caprican loco weed article achieve quality.

Summary[edit]

Wait, what? ... all joking aside, and aside from the fact that I wrote most of it, this article is a quality representation of a Silly page. See also: Spot the Cylon. JubalHarshaw 22:05, 21 May 2007 (CDT)

Suggestions[edit]

I'm a little torn about the notion that a non-sequitur page can be a quality page. However, perhaps looking at the quality of the article's purpose (that is, to make one laugh and poke fun at a canonical subject) is sufficient to merit a silly page as quality. This would allow silly pages to get some credit since they can't be Featured Articles.

You realize, of course, that this page must be outstandingly funny as a result. I love what's in it now, but perhaps the pot-smoker references and stories can be improved just a tad. I think this is one of the funniest, but let's make it work to the point where it's just pee-in-your-pants hilarious. Maybe a bogus TOS reference to plant vapors would help (with Starbuck being disappointed that his personal stash was confiscated or something). You get the idea. --Spencerian 08:33, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

Response to paragraph 1: yes, that was basically my thought as well. I hesitated to nominate it (just as I hesitated to write it in the first place). Maybe Silly articles shouldn't be official Quality articles, though technically they have to be "quality" (at least by consensus standards) to even remain in existence. I absolutely understand and agree with the decision to restrict them from FA status, however, I don't believe we should restrict them from QA status -
Response to paragraph 2: Does a quality Silly article need to be side-splittingly hilarious, or is well-wrought tongue-in-cheek nonsense (my basic intent when writing this) enough? My original purpose was to poke fun at a canonical subject, creating a story of its discovery that both poked fun at real world concepts (prohibition, decriminalization, various other hemp lore), poked fun at other RDM BSG drug references (chamalla and so forth), that "fit" within the actual canon events that took place. As far as hilarity, I find the "Also known as" section to be particularly funny, especially such entries as "Adama Bomba", "Tigh Stick" and "Battlestash Galactiganj". I'm all for any attempts to increase the funny factor, of course, but personally I am content with the article as it stands, even if that means no Quality article tag. Obviously, this is a wiki, consensus may differ and it may be edited at will! I just wanted to add my 2 cents. JubalHarshaw 12:55, 22 May 2007 (CDT)