Welcome to the Wiki. Feel free to tell us about yourself on your user page. Also read the Battlestar Wiki:Standards and Conventions project article, which details the policies we use in editing pages (this differs from many other wikis in consistent use of phrasing, abbreviations, format, and the like). --Spencerian 14:34, 22 January 2006 (EST)
Episode 13[edit]
Sorry to remove the Gateworld info, but Gateworld is not consider an "official" source. See BW:CJ. I apologize once again. --FrankieG 15:42, 23 September 2006 (CDT)
- I understand the need for officiality. I am exploring was for this website to show "unconfirmed" and "unofficial" rumors and stuff as there does seem to be interest in this by some members. Maybe the way I laid that out was a bit blatant but I think there does need to be a way to connect that rumor to this episode page but not give it the veneer of officiality. --Straycat0 14:09, 23 September 2006 (AST)
- There was a bg discussion about this and the consensus was no unconfirmed rumors. I will see if I can find the discussion. It had more to do with avoidance of trying to decide who is a good source, who was not for unofficial rumors. Hence, no "rumors".--FrankieG 16:03, 23 September 2006 (CDT)
- I do remember the discussion. I'm just pushing boundaries, testing limits. I have no problem with Gateworld not being considered an official source or for the need to not link fact pages with rumor and innuendo, but at the same time, I would like to find a possible way of reporting on such things as part of the fan-world and/or BSG-production history (sorry for not finding a good phrasing for this raw data). We do have a direct link to Gateworld.net on the main page for those who are interested in that, this is true, but what I am thinking is finding a way to take it one step further. Mind you, I do respect everything that's been discussed prior to this. I understand all the values and philosophy that went into it. I'm just looking for the wiggle room. --Straycat0 14:35, 23 September 2006 (AST)
- Like I always say, can't have any fun "behaving" ;) --FrankieG 16:16, 23 September 2006 (CDT)
- I do remember the discussion. I'm just pushing boundaries, testing limits. I have no problem with Gateworld not being considered an official source or for the need to not link fact pages with rumor and innuendo, but at the same time, I would like to find a possible way of reporting on such things as part of the fan-world and/or BSG-production history (sorry for not finding a good phrasing for this raw data). We do have a direct link to Gateworld.net on the main page for those who are interested in that, this is true, but what I am thinking is finding a way to take it one step further. Mind you, I do respect everything that's been discussed prior to this. I understand all the values and philosophy that went into it. I'm just looking for the wiggle room. --Straycat0 14:35, 23 September 2006 (AST)
- There was a bg discussion about this and the consensus was no unconfirmed rumors. I will see if I can find the discussion. It had more to do with avoidance of trying to decide who is a good source, who was not for unofficial rumors. Hence, no "rumors".--FrankieG 16:03, 23 September 2006 (CDT)
I too fell into this trap :(
Until they officially release something it's "In case your script or information about your script gets leaked, we will disavow any knowledge of it. This message will self-destruct in 15 seconds" --Serenity 16:57, 23 September 2006 (CDT)