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)

Keeping it more simple, use an "alternate" namespace for information greater than a "See Also" or "Separate Continuity Note". For instance, [[Tom Zarek (alternate)]] That way, any sep-con information can be admitted, comic, book, or otherwise, and it doesn't have to get all confusing with things like "TOS", "RDM"--otherwise readers might go "WTF?" and problems ensue. --Spencerian 12:23, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

That's exactly what I meant, I don't want Boxey (RDM) (tie-ins either. What I suggested is basically PAGENAME/Tie-ins or PAGENAME/Whatever, i.e. subpages of the page it relates to. --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 12:29, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

Subpages are probably the best idea to solve parentheses overload. That way we could have both "Galactica (TOS)/Alternate" and "Galactica (RDM)/Alternate" for example. --Serenity 13:58, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

Personally, I'm not too fond of putting separate continuity articles as a subpage... To me, it seems like it's endorsing separate continuity as part of the canon, instead of being separate from said canon. I rather like the idea of keeping the separate continuity as compartmentalized as much as possible, so putting it in parentheses works for me. However, instead of there being two sets of parenthetical disambiguations, a la Boxey (RDM) (tieins), we would instead have something like Boxey (RDM alternative), Boxey (RDM alt) or Boxey (RDM-SC). (SC being an acronym for "Separate continuity".) -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New} 21:49, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

The ease with subpages is that you can just link to /SC, which will automatically get you to PAGENAME/SC. Also, a link to the parent page appears on the subpage automatically. However, links to subpages do not automatically appear on the parent page; all you'd put up there would be something like ''For information on [[PAGENAME]] in separate continuities, see [[/SC|here]].'', which could even be implemented as a template. The fact that subpages provide a unified method of SC-page-naming makes it suitable for templates. I don't really get what you mean by subpages "endorsing SC as part of the canon": it's on a different page and clearly marked with the sepcon tag. --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 02:43, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

While I'd prefer to leave things as-is (except a "See Also" link), I like Catrope's idea if we have to make an adjustment, except that I would not want to see sep-con disambigs at the top of pages; that's distracting (and in my opinion would "pimp" the sep-con significance too much, per Joe's concern). --Spencerian 07:02, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

Concur. The sep-cons should be in a "see also" section or in a notes section of the article(s) in question, unless the page is a sep-con page itself. (We can also make a portal for the sep-con stuff as well, which I think we're starting to need, given our Comic development project.) Sep-cons shouldn't be a part of the top-page disambig. Also, they shouldn't be subpages of canon-articles, since making them a subordinate page also includes the canon-article namespace, which is the point I was trying to get at. The issue here is that sep-con pages should be compartmentalized from the canon pages, so that content from the sep-cons doesn't spill over into the canon pages. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New} 09:15, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

I still don't see how making them sub-pages of the main articles actually associates them officially or makes content spill over. The distinction is still clear enough because they carry the "sep con" template and no information is shared. It's just how they are named. However, "Boxey (RDM alternate)" works as well and is obviously better than "Boxey (RDM) (alternate)". Maybe we should put that up for vote. Once as subpage, once with a single parentheses. --Serenity 09:20, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

For the Portal... I would need to re-orginze the main layout. We would finally have a use for "More Portal..." button. :) Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 09:59, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

I believe it reduces the temptation for content to be spilled over since we've created a demarcation line for separate continuity content. Some of my inspiration comes from Larry Sanger's comments on subpages from here; basically, from a psychological level, the subpage would be viewed as being "subordinate" to the article in question, which (again) isn't the case as they are separate. Now, from a technical perspective when piping a link with a parenthetical disambig, the parenthetical item is automatically stripped out of the link, thus making link formatting easier. Additionally, I'm not entirely certain that subpages on the main namespace actually constitute as articles (in terms of how they are counted by the software), which is a concern I've tried to Google but have had little success with. So I may bring it up on the main mailing list. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New} 10:05, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

No need. It doesn't go to sub-pages. Ever. Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 10:08, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

Well, I already asked it. LOL Now, I guess we solved that issue, since sep-cons should rightfully be counted as articles. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New} 10:13, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

Or not. Apparently anything a part of the main namespace that consists of one link and is not a redirect, regardless of whether or not is a subpage, is considered an article by the stats counter. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New} 10:45, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

Lets just say ugly then. lol. I rather it be in it's own article than a subpage itself. Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 15:52, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

Subpages vs. parentheses

Since the section above is getting a little out of control (and far too much indented), I'll try to summarize what has been said above, and restart discussion in this section. Non-factual information (i.e. opinion) is marked as "(disputable)". Feel free to add to this list.

Subpages (e.g. Boxey (RDM)/Sepcon):

• Easy linking with a template
• Automatically links back to parent page
• Sepcon template can easily be altered to provide another link to the parent page
• May give the impression of endorsing sepcon as part of canon (disputable)

Parentheses (e.g. Boxey (RDM sepcon) or Boxey (RDM) (sepcon)):

• Gives a more separated impression from the 'parent' page (disputable)
• Titles look ugly (disputable)
• Easy template links are only possible with double parentheses (which is by some considered uglier).
• Doesn't auto-link to the parent page (although we can add a link manually)
• Linking to the parent from the sepcon template is harder (but possible)

I personally favor subpages, because they provide slightly more comfort. It doesn't really matter much, though; parentheses won't kill us, they'll just take slightly more time. --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 16:40, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

Through the K.I.S.S. principle, the existing format is better.

• Articles keep unique names (and pages) if they exist (Darrin Dualla, Jane Cally) and does not require namespacing/parentheses unless extended article is required ([[Tom Zarek (alternate)]])
• Allows connectivity to canonical articles without direct connections via links
• Differentiation between TOS and RDM does not matter since the separate continuity category is its own category
• Supports subcategories for specific books or other materials as needed ([[Category:Dynamite comics]])
• Allows usage of TOS and/or RDM categories without "spillover" connectivity by name that subpages would generate
• Titles, for the most part, are rarely complicated. This is a serious point, as multiple disambiguations would be needed for alternate pages should someone create separate alternate articles (which is possible, such as the various "Adama" characters and children). Maintenance of multiple disambiguated variations of a page will be an administrative nightmare.
• With uncomplicated pages, searches for a topic are easier. The dominant canonical character search term (say, "Dualla") remains the page where the term goes to (Anastasia Dualla), never to "Darrin Dualla". Sep-con articles generally don't get disambiguations on canonical articles (but can on dedicated disambig pages, such as Destiny or Resurrection).
• Focus on searches, as a result of all points, goes to canonical content first without limiting detailed searches on noncanonical terms.
• Searches on noncanonical content can be harder since the items may need to be more specific. "See also" sections could (with care) contain links to related sep-con articles.

I don't see any further minuses with the current format. --Spencerian 18:25, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

I do agree that the current format is better. I think that the only issue that this proposal can address, however, is what we do in the event where we run into a situation where we have to cover both the canonical and non-canoical subject matter with the same name with a disambiguation already in the title. Basically, how do we address "Apollo (TOS)" and a "sep-con" version of Apollo (TOS). Subpage or separate article with a more detailed disambiguation? -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New} 18:47, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

I like the "Tom Zarek (RDM alternate)" format. Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 21:11, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

Since Zarek hasn't a TOS counterpart, the RDM is redundant. "Alternate" suffices for that rare article. It's similar in effect to Troy (1980), although it's the same character as Boxey (TOS). --Spencerian 21:27, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

In that case, absolutely. However, the issue that needs to be addressed is how we handle articles that do include the (RDM), (TOS), or (1980) disambiguation that also have a "sep-con" counterpart. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New} 21:32, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

The only "problem" with the current format is that we can't have articles about sepcon characters that also exists in canon (for example, Anastasia Dualla can't mention her having a brother). Apart from that, I do prefer the current format. The discussion here is basically how we name the sepcon article for Apollo (TOS): do we use Apollo (TOS alternate), Apollo (TOS) (alternate) or Apollo (TOS)/Alternate? --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 04:11, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, that's what it comes down to. So maybe we should really change the policy proposal to those three options, since #1 is out anyways. Personally I prefer single parentheses. --Serenity 05:09, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

I recommend that we drop the use of TOS or RDM unless absolutely necessary. "Apollo (alternate)" may be necessary for the many many comics and his adventures, and it can have a disambig that indicates that this is a sep-con on the TOS character. Bios shouldn't recap episode or comic summaries, so there's got to be a good reason to break out a sep-con bio for these characters to begin with. The existence of the Dynamic Comics' version of Lee Adama could generate "Lee Adama (alternate)", but again there's no significant information I have read from these thus far for such a sep-con bio to warrant its generation that doesn't come from the comics summary. "William Adama (alternate)" and "Adama (alternate)" work fine to me, too, especially "Adama (alternate)" for the comics or novels in which the character has died. My main concern is that we have to set a "critical point" where a bio page is justified. The Tom Zarek comics certainly reaches that point, and maybe "Apollo (alternate)" is needed where the character becomes Galactica's commander in the comics. It seems a clear demarcation to me without any further namespacing, but we need to establish and enforce when the alternate character data dramatically differs from its canonical counterpart to warrant a sep-con article on its own that doesn't merely repeat a comic or novel summary part. --Spencerian 07:52, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

I agree. We probably won't need many of them, and the RDM/TOS clash can be avoided in most cases. --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 08:20, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

A note, I believe it is necessary that at the very beginning of any alternate continuity article we specify not only that it is an alternate continuity but which alternate continuity (comic, video game etc.). The current tags do not do this. OTW 12:59, 28 June 2007 (CDT)

I'll rework Template:Separate continuity tomorrow so it accepts the continuity name, as well as multiple universes (e.g. both TOS and RDM), the latter of which had to be done for some time now. --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 13:07, 28 June 2007 (CDT)

Readjusting the tag to reflect the specific comic/novel continuity as well as the universe continuity is a very good idea to minimize crazy names. I look forward to the results. --Spencerian 14:30, 28 June 2007 (CDT)