Battlestar Wiki talk:Characters: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 01:25, 2 September 2005

Naming[edit]

On purely aesthetic grounds, I'd prefer for us to use First Name Last Name without middle initials for article titles. I call myself Peter Farago in real life, not Peter A. Farago, anyway - it just sounds more natural. The articles could begin with the full name in boldface, to introduce them with more formality. --Peter Farago 04:10, 31 August 2005 (EDT)

I concur. I didn't really give it much thought when making Anders' new page. I'll go fix it now. --Day 04:13, 31 August 2005 (EDT)

Helo[edit]

The pages that aren't Agathon, Karl C. need to be deleted in order for him to be moved. In light of this page's creation, i'm going to remove the "Moving" section of my User page since this list supercedes that one. Tomorrow, I may merge my pictures to be added and character pages to be formatted, if someone doesn't beat me to it. Should we make one of these for Episode pages? Maybe also a Category for all project pages? How does making a Category even work? --Day 04:12, 31 August 2005 (EDT)

I have a few projects going on here now, so I'd like to finish this one before taking on another. Spencerian and Colonial one have been active on the episode guide pages, however. --Peter Farago 04:19, 31 August 2005 (EDT)

Day left me a note on the standardization (about time, too--got tired of that). I dived in to fix the Billy Keikeya page, the hard way (bring up current page, bring up redirect page from link there in separate browser, cut and paste content into preferred page, save, add redirect link into old page, save). We should be able to do this with Helo's page as well without deleting them (not that I know how or if this can be done by anyonoe other than Joe). If time allows me this afternoon, I'll take a stab at it and fix each redirect first, which will make things circular for a bit. Are we looking into applying similar formatting to differentiate the TOS and RDM episode pages? Spencerian 12:23, 31 August 2005 (EDT)

The problem with moving things the way you just said is that it disconnects the page from it's revision history. Ideally they should stay connected, but it means we need a sysop to clear the path. Listen to me... "Ideally they should," as if this weren't my first wiki ever. --Day 13:45, 31 August 2005 (EDT)

I see your point. However, unless Joe or another wiki expert here knows of a way to do this without history being mucked about, I can't see how we will do it. Spencerian 14:08, 31 August 2005 (EDT)

As I understand it, someone with sufficient privelages (a sysop of which we only have one: Joe) can delete the redirect page. Then, the move tab should work, which retains the revision history and carries the talk page and its revision history over, as well. The move tab's notice tells you it will over-write redirects, but it seems to be lying in some cases. I wonder if it means it'll over-write redirects that were created by a move request, but not that were hand-typed in. I'm not sure. --Day 14:15, 31 August 2005 (EDT)

Verb Tense[edit]

What about it? Some pages are written in the present tense, some in the past and some switch. I, personally, prefer past tense. That way, in ten years, it doesn't sound like the show just aired. What do others think? --Day 04:24, 31 August 2005 (EDT)

I favor present tense, which is traditional for discussing fictional characters ("Achilles kills Hector in Book 22 of the Illiad, not "Achilles killed Hector in Book 22 of the Illiad".)

The battle summaries would be a possible exception to this - as histories, the narrative flows best in the past tense, but as fiction, the events are "always" occurring every time the viewer watches - but that should be dealt with elsewhere. --Peter Farago 04:29, 31 August 2005 (EDT)

Hrm. Point. I was thinking, though, that when you read, for instance, the Lord of the Rings, "Gandalf said" rather than "says" and "Frodo did" rather than "does." However, this is a concern to more than just character pages... So where do we put it? --Day 05:31, 31 August 2005 (EDT)

When speaking of works of fiction, technically either past or present is correct, as long as one stays uniform. More traditionally, you would speak of a fictional work in the present tense (if you were giving a book report, for example) beacuse the work is considered timeless. If I review The Illiad today, someone who reads my review 50 years from now can read the book. I feel the same applies here.

In response to Day's concern about where to put it, there seems to be no central point for the guideline once it's decided. We could have a general "BSG Wiki Standards" page that would outline the preferred methods for future editors. Anyone else have any thoughts? Colonial one 21:25, 1 September 2005 (EDT)

Intro Paragraph?[edit]

See User talk:Joe.Beaudoin for my initial thought on this topic. To reiterate just one thing from it: I prefer no intro-paragraph with contents a la Lee Adama which looks really nice and the look of no intro-paragraph witthout contents (a la Samuel Anders) is growing on me. --Day 04:32, 31 August 2005 (EDT)

TOCs are automatically added when the article passes a certain number of headings/subheadings. I don't recommend overriding this behavior. I have no strong opinion on intro paragraphs, but Wikipedia favors them:

Start your article with a concise paragraph defining the topic at hand and mentioning the most important points. The reader should be able to get a good overview by only reading this first paragraph. (Wikipedia:How to write a great article)

It might be wise to bow to their expertise. --Peter Farago 04:41, 31 August 2005 (EDT)

When I mentioned with or without contents I meant "in the case that articles acquire TOCs due to lay out." And I like intro paragraphs on most things. The reason I bring it up for characters is that most of that would go in the intro-paragraph also goes into the Character Data box (age, callsign, full name, place of birth, etc.). This makes them kind of redundant for a lot of characters except the ones we'd know well enough to do a little personality write-up. --Day 05:16, 31 August 2005 (EDT)

I agree with Peter here. The Battle pages that Ricimer created used a one-sentence summary at its start, which works great there. See Battle of Ragnar Anchorage. Spencerian 12:27, 31 August 2005 (EDT)

Yes, Spencerian, but this page is for talking about character pages, so the Battle of Ragnar Anchorage is a bit off topic. I hope that doesn't come off as rude. I'm really not trying to be. --Day 14:26, 31 August 2005 (EDT)

His point is that it's often a good idea to begin a long article with a (very) brief explanation of who this person is, what he does, and why we should care. It's okay to duplicate a little information from the template. --Peter Farago 15:00, 31 August 2005 (EDT)

Based on what I'm gathering is current consensus, then, I added a Layout section to the project page. I just picked one of Biographical Notes vs. Biography, so someone feel more than free to rule differently on that one. From what I put down, then, Aaron Doral follows all the rules, and Lee Adama is only missing his intro, just to provide some examples of existing articles. Hope I didn't jump the gun on this... I'm still a bit afraid someone will yell at me for changing things. --Day 16:19, 31 August 2005 (EDT)

Nobody's going to yell at you. You've done a great job communicating your intentions here. --Peter Farago 16:32, 31 August 2005 (EDT)

Non-Canon Names[edit]

How should we deal with non-canon names, such as Brendan Constanza and Louanne Katraine? I'm tempted to say leave the articles at the minimum level of information concretely known, but in that case, has Galen Tyrol's first name actually been mentioned on-screen yet? --Peter Farago 13:08, 31 August 2005 (EDT)

Not from what I hear, but RDM has made mention of it in his blog that Tyrol's first name is Galen. As for Constanza and Katraine, I would make those names redirects to their canonical names. Perhaps there could also be a note on those character's pages regarding their reported name, but make sure to mention that they are not canonical and have only been mentioned at IMDB or magazines, or wherever. -- Joe Beaudoin 13:13, 31 August 2005 (EDT)

I think the way things stand now is fine. RDM's mentioned Tyrol's first name repeatedly in his blog and since he's the boss, so to speak, I think it's safe enough to go with that. The others are from less solid sources, so I think making not of them, but not naming the page based on them is appropriate. Also, for a long time, I had no idea what Tyrol's name was... He was just "Chief" to me... Think we should redirect from "The Chief" or something like that? Maybe that's a bit much. --Day 16:51, 1 September 2005 (EDT)

Agree that Galen Tyrol is close enough to canon, and that the others probably aren't yet. --Peter Farago 17:06, 1 September 2005 (EDT)

Layout in Humano-Cylon Articles[edit]

I'm not convinced that each "role" should be a subheading under biographical notes. There are analyses, notes, see alsos, etc. which could be specifically applicable for each role, but not to the others (Gina vs. Shelly vs. Baltar's Six, for example). Perhaps the "roles" on the Humano Cylon articles should form the top-level breakdown of each, with a sort of mini-biography under each one. This would also make it easier to incorporate pictures of variant models - supposedly, Gina has a very different look from Shelly or Baltar's six. --Peter Farago 16:32, 31 August 2005 (EDT)

Interesting thinking. This would make the Humano-Cylon articles significantly different from humans, but that's fine. So each role would get its own level two heading with level 3 headings under it for biography, etc.? In a case like Aaron Doral where there wouldn't be much more than Bio in each Role, maybe no level 3 headings? Or maybe that should be default, so that the Role's Bio directly follows the level 2 heading and level 3 headings would only be added for things like Notes or whatever. Am I making an sense or is my stream of consciousness muddling things? Also: should we come up with a different word than "role"? I only used it because Doral had it, but I don't think any other HC article has it. Maybe we should be using something that more properly indicates that they're different physical bodies for the same entity. Something like "instantiation" or "iteration" or something. Thoughts? --Day 17:02, 31 August 2005 (EDT)

I was thinking each "role" would have a level 1 heading, with bio, notes, etc. at level 2, although I like the idea of leaving Bio heading-less. As for terminology, how about "copy" or "version"? --Peter Farago 17:42, 31 August 2005 (EDT)

Er. Yeah. I said two because that's the number of equals signs you use. I think we've envisioning the same thing. So far I like "instantiation" and "version". "Instantiation" is pretty much exactly what we mean, but it's a bit of a moutful, so I think "version" is probably better to go with. Not to insult the intelligence of our readership, but it's the kind of word I'd feel compelled to link to the definition, just in case. --Day 18:14, 31 August 2005 (EDT)

I think "copy" is best, actually - after all, that's what it says at the beginning of every episode. --Peter Farago 17:07, 1 September 2005 (EDT)

Point. "There are many copies." I am convinced. This word wins for being, kind of, cannon. Canon. I always mix those up. Take it whichever way you please. Either it's established in the episodes or the word "copy" is a large gun-type thing used by pirates. --Day 17:09, 1 September 2005 (EDT)

Pictures[edit]

The pictures list is a) incomplete (I've only looked through A-L) and b) highly subjective, so feel free to add people you think I missed or whatever. Perhaps that goes without saying, but I thought I'd put it up anyway. --Day 19:00, 1 September 2005 (EDT)

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 ::Hrm. Point. I was thinking, though, that when you read, for instance, the Lord of the Rings, "Gandalf said" rather than "says" and "Frodo did" rather than "does." However, this is a concern to more than just character pages... So where do we put it? --[[User:Day|Day]] 05:31, 31 August 2005 (EDT)
+When speaking of works of fiction, technically either past or present is correct, as long as one stays uniform.  More traditionally, you would speak of a fictional work in the present tense (if you were giving a book report, for example) beacuse the work is considered timeless. If I review The Illiad today, someone who reads my review 50 years from now can read the book. I feel the same applies here.
+In response to [[User:Day|Day]]'s concern about where to put it, there seems to be no central point for the guideline once it's decided. We could have a general "BSG Wiki Standards" page that would outline the preferred methods for future editors. Anyone else have any thoughts? [[User:Colonial one|Colonial one]] 21:25, 1 September 2005 (EDT)
 == Intro Paragraph? ==