Battlestar Wiki:Galactipedians Quorum

This page is one of Battlestar Wiki's many projects. This page serves to coordinate discussion on a particular aspect of this Wiki. The formal recommendations of a project may be treated as policies.

Welcome, newcomers and baffled oldtimers! If you have a question about Battlestar Wiki and how it works, please place it at the bottom of the list, and someone will attempt to answer it for you. (If you have a question about life, the universe and everything, go to the reference desk instead.)

Before asking a question, check if it's answered by the Battlestar Wiki:FAQ or other pages linked from Battlestar Wiki:Help.

Before answering a newcomer's question abruptly, consider rereading Please do not bite the newcomers.

Questions and answers will not remain on this page indefinitely (otherwise it would very soon become too long to be editable). After a period of time with no further activity, information will be moved to other relevant sections of Battlestar Wiki (such as the FAQ pages) or placed in one of the Wikipedian Quorum archives if it is of general interest, or deleted. Please consider dating and titling your discussions so as to facilitate this.

Ask a new question or begin a new discussion by clicking here.

Rewrote Council Security

I did a pretty much total rewrite of Council Security. Hope it passes muster. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:35, 8 February 2008 (CST)

Looks good in general. Nice details of their appearances. Though we generally write the article bodies themselves from a strictly in-universe perspective and confine real-world references to notes (unless it's an article dealing with an obvious real-world subject of course). -- Serenity 10:45, 8 February 2008 (CST)

Yeah, I re-read the policy on that last night (after like 3 months); will re-re-write the article so that the real-world stuff is in the Notes section, unless someone has beat me to it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:47, 9 February 2008 (CST)

I removed it. It was mainly about the comparisons to the US police or Secret Service. The article is fine without that. Saying things like "In episode so and so they did..." is ok if it can't be avoided. Since the article partly deals with their different depiction in various episodes, that's appropriate in this case. So a completely re-write isn't really necessary. -- Serenity 08:54, 9 February 2008 (CST)

"Spoiler follows, highlight to read"

Does anybody else find the "highlight to read" style distracting and kind of unprofessional? Why can't we just use a little CSS to make a pop-down spoiler box:

Spoiler follows

Adama is a cylon!

(This is GFDL code from Wikipedia, I can copy it over to a template and give credit where it's due.) Evan 16:59, 20 March 2008 (CDT)

I don't see any problem with this. :) What does everyone else think? -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Battlestar Pegasus} 17:17, 20 March 2008 (CDT)

Format's pages wrong. Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 17:40, 20 March 2008 (CDT)

In what way? -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Battlestar Pegasus} 18:11, 20 March 2008 (CDT)

Colours don't work in BsgMonoBook, alignment is off in BsgBook, I don't see anything wrong in the default skin though. Evan 18:22, 20 March 2008 (CDT)

Nvm, the colours work in MonoBook. Actually I don't see anything wrong in any of the skins. Evan 18:38, 20 March 2008 (CDT)

If it doesn't screw anything up, this would be far better than the highlight thing we have now. -- Serenity 18:54, 20 March 2008 (CDT)

The drop down does not format on lists correct. Like before, it would create a new line and interrupt the list numbers. Also, from our previous discussion on javascript expanding boxes in the middle of episodes pages (which are not at the top), templates that expand huge things of text change the entire format of the page layout when they expand. Images get shifted and it creates an unnesseary new lines that were not there before. It's always 100% width. Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 09:30, 21 March 2008 (CDT)

OK, the template is created as Template:Spoilerbox, add it if you like. I'm not going to replace the existing spoilers since... I don't want to be spoiled :) Evan 07:39, 21 March 2008 (CDT)

Nice template. Less is more for me on some pages, especially now. --Spencerian 11:42, 21 March 2008 (CDT)

Uh, one question...what's the input format for the template? I can't glean that from the description. --Spencerian 11:45, 21 March 2008 (CDT)

I've updated the page, but the syntax is {{spoilerbox|This is a spoiler! Muhahahahha!}}. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Battlestar Pegasus} 13:55, 21 March 2008 (CDT)

I like the idea, but I'm not sure it's universally better than the current method... Especially if it will create problems like Shane mentioned. As dumb as it seems, I think the current method does have some advantages: Depending on how someone highlights the spoiler, they can control how much of the spoiler is revealed. Also, people can gauge how much content the spoiler contains just by looking at the amount of unreadable text. --Galjamspe 00:40, 22 March 2008 (CDT)

Proposition for new article

Hi! Quite new here, and since I don't find a button for creating a new article, I figure I must go through the Quorum?

I'd love it if we could open a small article for adding notice for Caprica Six's unborn baby. There's no actual article for this person yet, and I have to write my mentions about it, in already existing articles like Gaius Baltar's and Caprica Six's.

Thanks for the attention! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iniovan (talk • contribs).

Do we really know anything about the baby enough to write an article? At this point, we just know that Caprica-Six is pregnant and that the father is Saul. Other than that... any analysis on it could probably fit in the episode guides. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Battlestar Pegasus} 18:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Question on editing etiquette

Hi,

I'm a newbie here. So this is a question so I can hopefully avoid stepping on anyone's toes. If you see an existing article and wish to add to the information and content, would it always be best to ask the original contributor before doing so? Especially if to do so, I would have to move some items around in the original article.

For example, I want to put in a new reference to supplement the article, however, it would need to go before an existing article, requiring renumbering of all of the references.

I'm just trying to get a feel of what is good editing and bad editing before I put foot in mouth.

thanks! Jeff Rabb

In a word, no. In addition to greatly slowing down the ability for the community to keep things up to date, it also ignores the fact that once you hit "save page" your edits become community property. There really isn't an "ownership" of articles, outside of perhaps articles in the "User" namespace. So feel free to be bold and get in those edits. If somebody takes issue with your edits they can either change it back themselves, take it up in the talk page of the article in question, and/or potentially bring it up on your talk page. New references are almost always welcome, as they're the glue that binds this place together. --Steelviper 23:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice! Jeff

How Can This Not Be Canonical?

On the unnamed battlestars page, there is section dealing with the Berserk Class Escort. A notation notes the specific information on this class of ship is non-canonical. Presumably because it comes from the ship designer's own website vs that from one of the sanctioned websites or sources. But the ship WAS used in Razor. So how can one on one hand use it in the show and on the other hand say that any specific information on it from it's creator is non-canonical simply because TPTB never bothered to put it with a sanctioned source? It either is or isn't in my book. I'm sure this discussion has arisen many times before, but I'd like to find out the final arguement that finally determined why this source, which straddles the line, should be excluded as non-sanctioned? Jeff Rabb

The ship described on the website is on the show, but canon starts from the aired content and trickles down from there. So while we do see the ship, we aren't given any in-show identification of the ship. Also, there's nothing from the producers on the matter. However... the information coming from "crew" does seem to place it somewhere in category 3 in the source hierarchy, so it should have some weight (IMO). Anyway, I can see where the note was coming from (in that none of the information about the name of the ship, etc., came from any aired info or from RDM, etc), but I think you've got a decent argument. Given Joe's edit to the article, it appears he at least checked out the source website enough to correct the spelling to match it. Personally, I'd consider replacing the "canon" note and just replace it with a reference pointing to Chu's website. I do have to agree that it's not necessarily a battlestar, and in fact given the escort designation it's likely not a battlestar. Battleships don't "escort" battleships, and likewise with aircraft carriers. --Steelviper 01:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The Caprican - Will We, Won't We

Hello all,

Very, very new here. I'm wondering if the contents of the newzine "The Caprican" will be included in info on the Caprica series?

It's been really great to read it, and join in the group that's been posting in character. I wouldn't think that the comments would be included as material, but the actual articles seem like they're going to be good fodder for Colonial life in general.

Thanks! Glasswalker33

I think we need to be very clear that whatever is in "The Caprican" isn't necessarily canon. If that's done, I have no qualm about including it, since it is put out officially by the SyFy Channel. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Battlestar Pegasus} 03:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

As I am new to this website, I was looking for an answer to this question (that, and regarding whether we will include the information from Serge's Twitter account). How should we distinguish it is not "necessarily canon" - a separate non-canon section of a particular article, just note information in the background info./notes or just include it in the main article until it is contradicted? --JamiLeeD 23:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Question....Original Series

My teacher gave a clue to his laptop password...its "Three that was detroyed" from TOS can anyone tell me what it means? I tried D'Anna, Xena, And Six of one, none of the worked —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Snarky (talk • contribs).

"Three that was destroyed..." Hmm... Might be referring to a lot of things, actually. Like "Zac," the third child of Adama's that was killed in the pilot. Could be "Serina" too... I think your teacher needs to be a bit more specific. "Three" of what? Is "three" a specific thing, or does "three" mean a quantity? -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Battlestar Pegasus} 19:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Color of links to other wikis

I'm not quite sure this is the right place to ask this. I find a bit confusing that links to other wikis (e.g. Wikipedia, Memory Alpha) share their color with battlestarwiki links. I think its cool to link to other wikis at times, for example to give real world perspectives on some matters but I'd like to directly know if a link leads me away from this site. Maybe another shade of yellow/orange could be used? -- Penumbra 22:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... We could do that. I'd like to get everyone's impression on it though. I might tweet this so we can get some idea of what people think. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Battlestar Pegasus} 22:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to illustrate my point (and bring the discussion up again): Most of you are probably aware of this but I think Memory Alpha is a very good example for what I mean. The color of non-MA links is only slightly darker but it makes it very easy to spot them. -- Penumbra 19:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I am very much in support of this, I keep on getting sent to Memory Alpha or wherever when I don't really want to be. -- Rjinswand 20:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)