Battlestar Wiki talk:Think Tank/Character Bio Project: Difference between revisions

Discussion page of Battlestar Wiki:Think Tank/Character Bio Project
No edit summary
Line 7: Line 7:
Looks good. Personality profiles are potentially more interesting and more informative than chronological lists of actions. For main characters it is really not necessary to just repeat every little thing they do. That's appropriate for some secondary or background characters were not much material exists. Instead important story arcs and points can be summarized together and then cites with something like "Episode 11 through Episode 15". But it doesn't need to mention every appearance.<br/>
Looks good. Personality profiles are potentially more interesting and more informative than chronological lists of actions. For main characters it is really not necessary to just repeat every little thing they do. That's appropriate for some secondary or background characters were not much material exists. Instead important story arcs and points can be summarized together and then cites with something like "Episode 11 through Episode 15". But it doesn't need to mention every appearance.<br/>
If something is still too long, subpages can be created (like "Laura Roslin/Season 2"). But that would still leave large chunks of texts to read through, which might turn some people off. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 07:43, 11 March 2007 (CDT)
If something is still too long, subpages can be created (like "Laura Roslin/Season 2"). But that would still leave large chunks of texts to read through, which might turn some people off. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 07:43, 11 March 2007 (CDT)
:Right. I tried the subpage idea with William Adama's article (long before we had the think tank) and it didn't take. I concur on suggestions to encapsulate events to keep them both interesting but also brief, not repeating in detail the events of an episode. The problem, as we're probably realizing, is that we contributors will have to step up to be incredibly potent Concision Fairies. I may try Laura Roslin's page in a mock format to show what I have in mind. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 09:48, 11 March 2007 (CDT)

Revision as of 14:48, 11 March 2007

Comments on Proposal

As noted in the proposal, many have mixed feelings on the bulleted format used for some central characters before season 3. What suggestions do you have for defining these articles? Any comments on the proposal and ideas it offered? --Spencerian 22:26, 10 March 2007 (CST)

Along with my proposal "admendment" to the BW:SAC guidelines I think this is a good idea. Shane (T - C - E) 22:43, 10 March 2007 (CST)
Reads as pretty reasonable. The main problem with the bios is that they tend to repeat the episode events verbatim (on some of them, it's almost like they ripped the bullet points from the episode guide and did a copy-and-paste). This proposal does deal with that problem. I may have a few suggestions later on, since I need to sleep on it. ;-) -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 00:35, 11 March 2007 (CST)

Looks good. Personality profiles are potentially more interesting and more informative than chronological lists of actions. For main characters it is really not necessary to just repeat every little thing they do. That's appropriate for some secondary or background characters were not much material exists. Instead important story arcs and points can be summarized together and then cites with something like "Episode 11 through Episode 15". But it doesn't need to mention every appearance.
If something is still too long, subpages can be created (like "Laura Roslin/Season 2"). But that would still leave large chunks of texts to read through, which might turn some people off. --Serenity 07:43, 11 March 2007 (CDT)

Right. I tried the subpage idea with William Adama's article (long before we had the think tank) and it didn't take. I concur on suggestions to encapsulate events to keep them both interesting but also brief, not repeating in detail the events of an episode. The problem, as we're probably realizing, is that we contributors will have to step up to be incredibly potent Concision Fairies. I may try Laura Roslin's page in a mock format to show what I have in mind. --Spencerian 09:48, 11 March 2007 (CDT)