Talk:Main Page/Archive6

Discussion page of Main Page/Archive6

I know, I'm just focusing on other things..., Suggestions, Style Conventions, Quote-o-Matic, NPOV?, Fan Fiction, IRC Channel?, How BSG Wiki Compares to Other Wikis, Logo, Quotes link, Article count, Punctuation, Update the spoiler section, Navigation, Main Page Re-org, IMDB Links, Indexing on THE, "Wikipedia", URL Reffer Error, Last.fm now playing image, XHTML, The Community & The Fan Stuff, New Main Page Design, Main Page Same Across different lanauges, BSG Wiki Logo Image location


Friends...[edit]

What does another site have to do, really, to get on our little "Friends" list? I just wondered if there were any rules or... what? I thought, since we link Memory Alpha, that it might be appropriate to link the Wookieepedia, seeing as how it's another huge Wiki about a popular SciFi universe (or Space Opera, but let's not split hairs). Anyway... What's the story? --Day (Talk - Admin) 00:03, 31 May 2006 (CDT)

Well.. I created the "friends" section to hightlight sites that have a lot of common elements to each other. Gateworld - Learn about most BSG News Here. MA - A lot of the Actors/Crew have down work in Star Trek and BSG is compared to Star Trek. Wikipedia - Has large sections of just everything. inlcuding the templates, and styles we use on the site. This is my unoffical policy of the friends section bear in mind. I wouldn't just put any old site on this section unless if it did had a significant impact on the subject matter at hand. I don't see alot of Star Wars references in this Wiki. That's why I would not put that site in this section. Plus we have a thing with {{gateworldphoto}} and I think Joe is talking or might soon be talking with {{memoryalphaphoto}}. We use alot of the same common images. --Shane (T - C - E) 00:21, 31 May 2006 (CDT)
Ah. Now I know. Fair enough. --Day (Talk - Admin) 01:56, 31 May 2006 (CDT)
The star wars wiki is totally messed up anyway. Continuity to chopped to shreds. Films, guides, novels, animated series... --Mercifull 03:05, 13 June 2006 (CDT)

Did you know...[edit]

So I was thinking of adding a "Did You Know..." section under the "Airdates" section (if for no other reason than that space is not used), but I couldn't figure it out. I have some ides for Did You Know...s, so if someone else has already started working on this, lemme know. Just while I'm thinking of it, I'll post what's in my head now right here. Otherwise I'll forget.

Did You Know...

I thought of some more while I was typing that. Anyway... there's those. --Day (Talk - Admin) 23:37, 2 June 2006 (CDT)

Oh. I just now saw that there's a "Did you know..." section on the RDM portal... Is there a reason not to put it over here and include questions from all continuities? --Day (Talk - Admin) 23:39, 2 June 2006 (CDT)
I still like the idea of "did you know" on the front page. I can add it to the main page project. Under what section is the question. With the news being so long it is really tough. Right now I am working on the cite.php file to see if I can place the refernces in another area (new section on the front page - also see current design) so they would not interfere with the disuption of the news elements with the left side coloum. Plus I think the airdates will get longer once our internationial users start putting up their airdates. So everything will balance out I think for Season 3. --Shane (T - C - E) 23:48, 2 June 2006 (CDT)
I'll get right on it. --The Merovingian (C - E) 07:52, 3 June 2006 (CDT)

Region 4 Season 2 DVD new Slimline Set[edit]

Can we please include the new Region 4 release set for 16 August 2006 for Australia [1]. This is an Australian Store. I have made several edits in the Mini series and Season 1 DVD set to include the Region 2, 4, and 5. Im unsure that it includes all episodes, but i would assume it would be the case as for it being Season 2 not Season 2.0, and having a price tag of AU$80 and of course being released after the full season 2 was aired. --Lgamser 23:35, 13 June 2006 (CDT)

1900x1200 Res[edit]

I just got my cable installed from Comcast today, and this site looks REALLY well on this big screen (24") computer monitor I have. It looks very good! :) --Shane (T - C - E) 20:34, 19 June 2006 (CDT)

Proposal to Open Wiki to Unregistered Users[edit]

I think the time has come, or close to it to re-open the Wiki to all users without the need to register. We have the tools, the policy, the people, to support a full time 24/7 operation of keeping the wiki in check. We also have the most imporatnat policy BW:PRO (in progress) for information to be keeped sucure. With the summer starting and October coming up quickly and the new found acess to the BW:OC page, it would be nice to see some other contribuations from real outsiders.

I don't know if this should be done right away, but we need some sort of guidelines worked on in BW:PRO and possaibliy BW:IP and we would need BW:PRI up and voted on. --Shane (T - C - E) 14:04, 23 June 2006 (CDT)

The problem, as Joe and others (before Joe created admin status to the wiki last fall) can vouch, involves zombie PCs that are used to spam the wiki by anonymous editing. Spammers don't adhere to policy, and nothing we write will keep a spammer from making a mess of things. We were hit a lot last summer by this problem until Joe restricted anonymous editing. Spammers still get on, but now they have to make a more concerted effort, and it appears its hardly worth their time. The latest MediaWiki update might have further flummoxed them, as well. I'm for requiring registered users; IPs are too anonymous, and I want to credit or blame someone for changes, as well as not have some yahoo wreck months of everyone's work. We really aren't on here 24/7, so I can't say that's an effective argument for reinstating this. We see quite a number of new users each week, and the rate increases when new episodes are in play, so I can't see how opening what is already an open wiki (registration needed) will do. --Spencerian 17:23, 23 June 2006 (CDT)
We are 24/7. Usually when most of us are asleep Mercifull is online and same with Ford. Our Euorpe is base is growing. Protecting important pages BW:SAC and such can be protected. If people where giving the oppertunity to prove themself instead of admins & users hiding behind the curtain of signing up. I don't see alot of vandlism at the Memory Alpha wiki which has open editing. --Shane (T - C - E) 18:28, 23 June 2006 (CDT)
I've expressed before, in my 3rd Administratorsship election, that I think we would get more contributions if we switched back to allowing all people to contribute. As for spammers being a problem: MemoryAlpha (The Star Trek Wiki) is open content and they are able to police their wiki against these problems quite well. --The Merovingian (C - E) 19:09, 23 June 2006 (CDT)
I think it's an unnecessary risk, there are many people out there who would just join to mess things up. You of all people know this Merv. Also, for the past few months I have noticed that some people's thoughts about the wookie have changed to the negative. I don't think we are really in an information-full time where we need to allow unregistered users edit pages and be allowed to vote in wiki decisions. --Sauron18 22:29 23 June (CDT)
Even on Memory Alpha, unregistered users are not counted in actual site votes. You need an account. People's thoughts about the wiki have changed "to the negative"? If you're referring to the Moist Board gang such as loraque & Co, they're a dozen trolls that no one takes seriously, sauron. I don't need to tell you that :) --The Merovingian (C - E) 22:36, 23 June 2006 (CDT)
My opinion is stated, I simply consider it an unnecessary risk. --Sauron18 00:48 24 June 2006 (CDT)
Perhaps its something we could do as a trial period at some point after series 3 has started. At the moment i fear that if we open to all people would just be posting unsourced spoilers and fanfiction relating to series 3. --Mercifull 04:47, 24 June 2006 (CDT)
Bad idea! BAAAAAD idea! It doesnt take a lot to register here - and with registered users, it means that if someone does post junk or whatnot, it's easy enough to block them from making edits and by being registered users, they have the added benefit of being part of the community - rather than fly by night posters. Just my 2p :) --Fordsierra4x4 07:18, 24 June 2006 (CDT)
I agree with Ford. Merciful's idea might be a nice compromise. However, I don't see how the theoritical postives (maybe someone will post who would not otherwise) outweighs the known bads (vandalism and spamming will increase). There is very little that the great group of existing contributers miss. Is there a way to allow limited anonymous posting? Maybe to a "lost and found" page for info that the regular contributers may have missed. --FrankieG 09:23, 24 June 2006 (CDT)
I like Mercifull's idea. --The Merovingian (C - E) 10:47, 24 June 2006 (CDT)
Personally, I don't fully agree with the idea that the more we open the wiki the more good contributors we'll get. Wikipedia, for instance, has a serious problem with anonymous IPs vandalizing Wikipedia with nonsense edits. (Sometimes they are minor and don't get caught for days, despite all the people that do RC patrol.) I'm more concerned with the quality of our editors and our articles than the quantity of either. If I may steal something that SV previously mentioned, we're scored on how well we do things, not on how timely they are. This doesn't mean that I'm not open for seeing whether or not we can relax some of the restrictions to editing, but before we just open the floodgates, we need to have a plan of action. Right now, it would be to our benefit to plan, seeing as this is our "downtime". -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 17:18, 24 June 2006 (CDT)
What can I say? I agree with Joe. I think, too, that unregistered editing tested in the middle of a season would be dangerous. That is a time when we'll be getting a lot of attention (as opposed to now) and if we have some kind of melt down due to the test, we'd really be shooting ourselves in the foot. I'm much, much more concerned with quality over quantity. --Day (Talk - Admin) 22:36, 24 June 2006 (CDT)

Poll on Mercifull's Idea[edit]

Support

  • Support Shane (T - C - E) 11:04, 24 June 2006 (CDT)

Oppose

  • Oppose --Day (Talk - Admin) 22:34, 24 June 2006 (CDT)
  • Oppose A change like this should be a long-term committment. Either it works or it doesn't. I'm not fond on chasing down vandals or their ill-work over 1,299 articles, either. Once a zombie is in, their automation could spam EVERY. SINGLE. ARTICLE. --Spencerian 13:18, 27 June 2006 (CDT)
  • Oppose --Peter Farago 14:40, 27 June 2006 (CDT)
  • Oppose --Fordsierra4x4 18:44, 27 June 2006 (CDT)

I just want to comment that it was just an idea I was posting about. It was not meant as a formal proposal as I did not think it all though fully at the time of posting --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 14:48, 27 June 2006 (CDT)

Try not to take it personally. I don't think a referendum on this topic is out of line at all - I just happen to oppose it. --Peter Farago 14:50, 27 June 2006 (CDT)
I'm not taking it personally dont worry. I just wasnt especting for people to have a vote on a passing thought lol --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 15:37, 27 June 2006 (CDT)

If there was...[edit]

File:Forum Example.jpg

http://forum.battlestarwiki.org

What would you like as your fourm format?

  • Stylized BSG Format
  • Seperate "Username" Database
    • Found no plugin for sharing databases (sorry!)
  • "Wiki" Generation Links on the Forum
  • Used for non-pertaining Wiki discusstions
  • Add your suggestion on this list...

--Shane (T - C - E) 08:09, 24 June 2006 (CDT)

  • Strictly administered. I'm tired of moronic conversations on other unnamed boards. I like the idea though. --FrankieG 09:11, 24 June 2006 (CDT)
  • I do not understand what you are proposing. If it's a subforum of some kind, we don't really need one. --The Merovingian (C - E) 10:50, 24 June 2006 (CDT)
  • This was proposed a while ago, I think, but we realized that none of the decent reasons for having a forum could not also be served by things that already exist. The Wiki, itsself, provides an infrastructure for discussing editing, etc. There are plenty of fora for discussing the show in a non-Wiki setting (allowing for wide-ranging speculation without worrying that people might think you're proposing inclusion of your craziness in an artile) and ours would just be in competition with them. If you want to get to know your fellow contributers, many share their AIM screen names and/or email addresses, and for those that don't, you could always ask. I guess what I'm saying is that I think the idea is kind of needless. --Day (Talk - Admin) 22:40, 24 June 2006 (CDT)
  • I found this thread with some information on merging databases which might be useful should people decide to have a forum here. Its a nice idea but i dont know if this place really has the demand for a forum right now? --Mercifull 03:29, 26 June 2006 (CDT)
  • The main reason I'd be interested in a forum would be as a possible way to get feedback from the "users". As easy as we think it is to edit a talk page, the whole "Wiki edit" system (and the user registration) is really intimidating for a lot of folks that might have some really relevent things to say. I'd like to find some way for the people that primarily read the wiki (rather than edit it) to have a voice. A forum isn't necessarily the only solution for this, but it is one possibility. The danger of the forum, of course, being that wiki-matters might get brought up there and not end up being discussed at the proper location on the wiki as well. The transparency of the decision-making, criticism, communication, etc. is one of the wiki's great strengths, and I would not want to jeopardize that. --Steelviper 08:04, 26 June 2006 (CDT)
    • I think thats one of the benefits of these mediawiki modifications for the forum in that you can link very easily to wiki pages. --Mercifull 08:12, 26 June 2006 (CDT)
  • I agree with SV. Also, I think that "learning" may be easier through a forum. Like an interactive formatting thread, or a NPOV thread, etc. with questions and answer. --FrankieG 08:14, 26 June 2006 (CDT).
  • For God's sake, no. One of the best things about the wiki is that all discussion takes place on talk pages here, and is easily visible by anyone - visitor or editor. I don't want to have to go to an entirely separate site to see discussions. --Peter Farago 14:54, 27 June 2006 (CDT)
    • it is however a good way for administrators to communicate with each other securely --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 15:45, 27 June 2006 (CDT)
Peter is correct that the open nature is healthy. Unlike other communities that shall remain nameless (*cough* skiffy *cough*) you get to see all the "deliberations" out in plain sight so there is no confusion as to why an action was taken. That's really refreshing. My biggest argument for an off-wiki means of communication was for giving a voice to those who can't/won't deal with the Wiki-editing UI. Which, theoretically we might be able to overcome through other means (some sort of a "suggestion box" page with a simple text window input, for example). --Steelviper 16:02, 27 June 2006 (CDT)
I would expect the forum to be more off topic/chat type of place rather than relating directly to the wiki. --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 16:19, 27 June 2006 (CDT)

Style Sheet Completed[edit]

The style sheet and new "look" of BSG elements is done. You can view the style here, but their is no content. Once the style sheet is upload to this wiki, I am sure you will see a huge difference along with some major edits to change most of the elemtns into CSS. Myself and Mercifull have been working on this for a while. A "Mediawiki" color look will also be created. We will also create a "Template" page of the new CSS so people know the class of each element that is in the CSS in-case you are not familmar with CSS code. That's about it. The wiki is "open" edit so you can fool around with the new style. The images are not transfered yet (i.e. the new Site images) because I am working on the code to make sure they are loaded differently from the default. No images also work on the site. Comments on the main page project page. --Shane (T - C - E) 12:50, 24 June 2006 (CDT)

Will this style sheet effort also be taking care of the non-default styles? I understand that the white background one is somewhat popular, as well, and so we'd want to alter the SS that it's working off of to interpret new classes into aesthetically synchronous colors, etc. I applaud the two of your for doing this. I kept wanting to, but was also feeling kind of daunted by the need to support multiple style sheets (that's a lot of CSSing!). --Day (Talk - Admin) 22:46, 24 June 2006 (CDT)
The CSSing while be a problem because there are some many things to change. --Shane (T - C - E) 22:52, 24 June 2006 (CDT)
I thought... it was "Completed" already. Perhaps the verb "to CSS" is unclear. I envisioned it meaning the writing of the .css file specifically, not any connected changes to HTML. That miscommunication is probably my fault. Anyway, if you want to delegate something related to this project to me, I play well with CSS and XHTML, so I don't think I'd break anything irreparably. I also don't want to barge in and mess things up if you and Merciful have got a little groove going on, or something. Lemme know. --Day (Talk - Admin) 23:51, 24 June 2006 (CDT)
CSS refers to class= and not id=. --Shane (T - C - E) 10:05, 25 June 2006 (CDT)
You must be confused. CSS selectors can select elements by both class and ID. --Peter Farago 23:22, 26 June 2006 (CDT)
Indeed. CSS refers to Cascading Style Sheets. And, anyway, that distinction doesn't seem to relate to my post in the least. --Day (Talk - Admin) 23:26, 26 June 2006 (CDT)

Your Screen Resolution[edit]

Just before I take my vacation here, I want to know your screen resolution. Just incress the count or add your if it's not there. Thanks.

  • 800x600 - 1
  • 1024x728 - 4
  • 1280x1024 - 3
  • 1280x800 - 1
  • 1400x1050 - 2
  • 1600x1200 - 1
  • 1680x1050 - 1
  • 1900x1200 - 1

--Shane (T - C - E) 11:46, 26 June 2006 (CDT)

Comment: As a mac user, I am unaccustomed to running my web browser at any fixed size. I strongly oppose any redesign which would require moving to fixed widths. --Peter Farago 23:21, 26 June 2006 (CDT)
This is not dealing with the website. --Shane (T - C - E) 23:40, 26 June 2006 (CDT)
I am in Peter's boat as well, seeing as I edit on a G4 and typically have two browser windows opened side-by-side. (Particularly helpful when you're accessing online sources and writing an article at the same time.) -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 10:04, 27 June 2006 (CDT)
Ditto. I use a Mac laptop. A Mac's higher resolution means that we usually see a website in a not-so-flattering manner. In the case of a screen saver, it would be best to offer one that works in the wider dimensions that all LCD Macs offer. That is, instead of 1024x768, make a 1024x640, or a 1152x720. --Spencerian 13:26, 27 June 2006 (CDT)
Shane is/was working on screensavers (win32 for now, but possibly mac in the future), and was looking at what size of background images, etc. he needed, I think. --Steelviper 10:19, 27 June 2006 (CDT)
This is irrelevant, but as a factual matter, Mac screens tend to have lower resolutions than comparably sized non-Mac screens. (The reason is preservation of 72dpi for graphic artists or somesuch, and this is not meant as flamebait.) I think you mean the aspect ratio is higher, as a 14" widescreen is physically smaller than a 14" 4:3 display and is thus likely to have a lower resolution. --CalculatinAvatar(C-T) 01:04, 28 June 2006 (CDT)

I use a 17" 1280x1024 5:4 TFT for daily use, 1680x1050 20.5" 16:10 TFT on another machine (not mine) and 1400x1050 5:4 on my laptop (Compaq Evo N180c) --Fordsierra4x4 18:47, 27 June 2006 (CDT)

1400x1050 is 4:3 (factor of 350). --CalculatinAvatar(C-T) 01:04, 28 June 2006 (CDT)

Quotes[edit]

I was thinking... if someone spots a typo in the quote of the day, there's no easy way for them to edit it. Should we make an (edit this) link in the title bar that's unobtrusive, or at least, maybe, make the title a link to Battlestar Wiki:Quotes? That do folks think? --Day (Talk - Admin) 02:40, 28 June 2006 (CDT)

Click the little "quotes" icon and it takes you right to the page for the current QOTD. Then you just gotta wait a couple of mins for the wiki to update the main page. --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 03:09, 28 June 2006 (CDT)
You can also "force" a refresh, by adding "&action=purge" to the url, and running it. Some of the portals have a "refresh" button that do that very thing (more for refreshing the "subpages" that make up the portals). Regarding the main page links, Day is correct that there isn't a link to BW:QUOTE if you were looking to add to future quotes (or browse through the existing quotes). It might be nice to find a way to get that link in there somewhere. The icon link to the current day's quote is neat, though.--Steelviper 07:51, 28 June 2006 (CDT)
I think a link to the main quotes page would be quite a cool feature to have on the left menu in the projects section --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 07:58, 28 June 2006 (CDT)
The icon being a link is great and all, but I find it entirely counter-intuitive. I, obviously, would never have guessed that it was there, and I imagine other users would think similarly. Can we brainstorm more straight-forward ideas, too? --Day (Talk - Admin) 19:44, 28 June 2006 (CDT)
I would never have guessed it either. --FrankieG 20:34, 28 June 2006 (CDT)

Re-imagined Series definition: Battlestar Group (TRS: "Water"). It also doubles as an acronym for the television series itself.

Retrieved from "https://en.battlestarwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page/Archive6&oldid=63070"