Battlestar Wiki talk:Think Tank/Separate continuity change

Comments

I've read Motherfraker's proposal and disagree strongly on this proposal. The primary reason why the separate continuity policy was made was to allow inclusion of Battlestar Galactica information that partially or totally contradicts aired content. By marking it and restricting inclusion of sep/con information into aired content, we ensure that Battlestar Wiki became one of the most detailed references for all officially licensed or aired series information. The alternative would be (1) allowing the process that this proposal offered, which will lead to staggering contradictions and continuity problems that would diminish BW's effectiveness as an encyclopedia, or (2) prohibiting all non-aired content, as Memory Alpha, the Star Trek Wiki, tends to do. A point of example of how officially licensed work could wreck a lot of canonical articles: The miniseries novelization contains references to Jane Cally, Brad Socinus and Natasi. These character names wholly contradict aired content. However, the novelization page notes the differences, which makes for interesting comparisons. (Note that these names have articles here dispite their continuity.)

Separate continuity works very well as (1) story arcs from novels, comics and the like can be linked together, (2) character information specific to the sep/con article acts as a tie-in without affecting the canonical article (take the useful "Battlestar Galactica 0" comic and the content on the incarnation of Zak Adama there).

Separate continuity articles allow free and expansive detail of the publication or merchandise and its values without creating headaches in tying it in the other continuities. Being "separate continuity" doesn't exclude, but allows categorization and inclusion. Any other option will create a chaotic situation.

I appreciate Motherfraker's enthusiasm for the saga and intent. However, this would be a very time consuming and unnecessary change that would drastically change the effectiveness of the wiki and increase confusion and work for all contributors. --Spencerian 01:14, 1 January 2007 (CST)

It shouldn't be included freely into the main articles, as not many people read the comics or the novels, and could thus be confused. But appending it in a seperate section might just work. That upholds the distinction between the continuities (I hate the word canon). However I'm not sure if it's really needed --Serenity 08:12, 1 January 2007 (CST)

From the proposal, I would not vote for this. Maybe in terms of "See Also" could be in order. Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 09:29, 1 January 2007 (CST)

I pretty much agree with what Serenity said. I don't particulary care for the inclusion of non-canon information in the canon articles, with notable exceptions. With this in mind, one solution I've had might be best to treat the seperate continuity items in their own article. For instance, The Twelve Colonies (RDM comic) would have information on the colonies, including Sagitarron, from the Zarek comics, whereas the The Twelve Colonies (RDM) would have the information from the series. The only other solution that I can presently come up with is to prohibit all non-aired content, as Spencerian said, and move this all to a separate Battlestar Wiki focusing solely on officially licensed fiction works. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 09:33, 1 January 2007 (CST)

What I meant is include it in the main articles, but in its own sub-section there. Just under another header like we know have "Notes" or "See also". It just shouldn't be mixed randomly with TV information.

Of course for large articles, like the mentioned info in the Colonies as whole, that's not such a good idea. A seperate article is clearly better then. But if it's just one or two snippets of comic info, including it in the article might be fine.

But since that creates the need to make distinctions again, maybe it would be easier to make just one rule. Something like "Galactica (tie-ins)" would be the most consistent with the current Wiki structure. --Serenity 09:48, 1 January 2007 (CST)

Separate continuity is the separator; we shouldn't need to create new namespaces for different things unless the names conflict (whereby "The Twelve Colonies (RDM comic)" is very appropriate). Articles that speak of canonical stuff should never mix with sep.con items because somebody will eventually confuse the two, and may add sep.con stuff to other canon articles. It looks like we support the spirit of keeping sep.con as-is. I do like Joe's idea to create additional articles for expanded sep.con info: in fact, that's how things current work. I look forward to lots of new stuff on the sep.con version of Tom Zarek and his old colony, whereby if lots of characterization is generated about him there, we may need to create articles like "[[Tom Zarek (comic)]]". As said, I don't like mixing it up otherwise, so I vote to Oppose Motherfraker's inherent change request. --Spencerian 14:43, 11 January 2007 (CST)

I basically agree, but I wouldn't use "(comic)" since there are also novels. That's why I said "(tie-in)" above. That's more general and encompasses all literary works. Or some other description that covers comics and novels. Just as long as it doesn't become "(non-canon)". I hate the somewhat religious connotation of that and the reverence it gets (especially by Trekkies). Memory Alpha takes that even further and calls it "Apocrypha" ;) --Serenity 15:03, 11 January 2007 (CST)

Sit rep?

Judging from the comments and discussion here, it looks like this proposal isn't going to pass in its current state... Do we want to put it to a formal vote? -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New} 09:29, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

I'd put it to a vote. I think the dire ramifications of changing things is pretty clear in the discussion, and I'm too close to its generation to simply say "nix it" without a vote. --Spencerian 11:10, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

Right, I'll wait until later tonight to see what other contributors have to say. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New} 11:22, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

Could do, there are three ideas at the moment. Number 1 won't pass, but #2 and #3 have some merit (#2 is even done already in some cases, but is impractical for large additions). Alternatively, people can just oppose everything and things stay as they are. --Serenity 11:24, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

I personally favor #3, with the addition that tie-in pages must be listed in the See Also section of their parent page. Also, instead of Zarek (tie-ins), we could do Zarek/Tie-ins. For articles like Boxey (RDM), Boxey (RDM)/Tie-ins is much cleaner than Boxey (RDM) (tie-ins) or Boxey (RDM tie-ins). The subpage system would also make it possible to simply link to /Tie-ins from the parent page. --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 11:36, 7 June 2007 (CDT)