100% Agree. My aurgment lies here: http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Battlestar_Wiki_talk:Episode_Standardization#Questions.2FAnalysis_Sections --Shane (T - C - E) 21:47, 25 October 2006 (CDT)
This I have no problem with. If anything, the "back and forth" commentary needs to be placed on the discussion pages, so that questions can be rephrased, removed, or modified accordingly. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 06:41, 26 October 2006 (CDT)
- Well we dont have a forum, where else would you suggest this kind of stuff take place? --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 08:30, 26 October 2006 (CDT)
- Joe is suggesting it take place on the discussion/talk pages, rather than in the article space. The argumentative retorts tend to break the "encyclopedic" feel of the articles. Though I understand why you'd be interested in getting some kind of a forum set up in those domain names... --Steelviper 09:14, 26 October 2006 (CDT)
- It would be better if we chose to require each and every question to be written in single bullets instead of the nested questions, which complicate editing matters. We could use the talk page to transfer obvious or answered questions from the article, but I wouldn't care to have a discussion there, either. We already have the Standards and Conventions policy of how to enter questions, so a new policy is merely redundant. I think we just need to create a practice with editing that enforces the current rule, and perhaps be more strict about entering questions. Alternatively, we could create a separate subarticle for the episode article (for example, [[Exodus, Part II/Preliminary questions]]) that allow free-flowing questions to be entered by veteran or new contributors with less knowledge of the show. Questions placed there that remain unanswerable and germane (that is, avoiding overspeculation and fanwanking) can be added to the larger page, say, 1 week after the episode airs. In a sense, we moderate the questions outside of the article and they stay in wikispace.--Spencerian 09:12, 26 October 2006 (CDT)