Battlestar Wiki Talk:Toaster/Archive 1

Talk:Toaster/Archive 1

Discussion page of Toaster/Archive 1
< Talk:Toaster
Revision as of 01:58, 11 April 2020 by Joe Beaudoin Jr. (talk | contribs) (Text replacement - "Peter Farago" to "April Arcus")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Does anybody think we should upload an image of an actual toaster to illustrate this page? I know a lot of the contributors here seem to be fairly serious individuals, but if someone could do it I think it would be cute. Just a pic of an actual chrome toaster - it'll be great, I think.

Jzanjani 21:41, 7 October 2005 (EDT)

I've found one that's nondescript enough: (which was removed and uploaded to the Wiki--Spencerian)

Spencerian, do what you've got to do!

Jzanjani 21:45, 7 October 2005 (EDT)

Adorable. --April Arcus 22:06, 7 October 2005 (EDT)

The Toaster is watching all of us, and waiting for its time to return home. Spencerian 22:27, 7 October 2005 (EDT)

I really think the character box itself is overboard and must go, though the other in article stuff as well as picture can stay.---Ricimer, October 8, 2005
Yeah, okay. --April Arcus 10:48, 8 October 2005 (EDT)
The character box is perfect for a page that's certainly never going to grow larger. It's arguably the most humorous article we have. I think it really livens up the thing, especially considering it's supposed to be a racial epiphet. Silly page, right? Before we ransack it, let it sit for a bit and get a group consensus. If the majority's a bit too anal about it, we make the change. Spencerian 11:41, 8 October 2005 (EDT)
It was only meant to be a word defination page, exactly like the "frak" page. We are not trying to "liven things up" so much as we are striving for accuracy.---Ricimer, October 8, 2005
You have a point, albeit tenuous for this one page. Let's let consensus work here for a few days. If Peter, of ALL people, finds the site humorous enough to create a category for future pages, then others may find it enjoyable enough. Besides, the information there remains accurate, and a BSG toaster "is" really a Cylon (just not the bread-using kind). And, frankly, Ricimer, I know this article was good for me as you and Jzanjani's antics haven't made me laugh much in the last few days. I don't know, maybe the "frak" page could use a little levity...heh-heh. And, let's see what Joe says about it. Spencerian 12:02, 8 October 2005 (EDT)

The article is definitely necessary, as is mention of the joke in a certain S1 episode(an actual toaster alerting beings derogatively called "toasters"). ZeldaTheSwordsman 19:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Our Silly Pages should be rare

Not that our wiki should have too many of these as it defeats the informative nature of our site, but, damn, if you haven't clicked on the article link for Cylons on Unencylopedia, please do so. That is the ANTI-wiki site where misinformation is not only allowed, but encouraged. I think I busted a tear gland reading a couple of entries there. --Spencerian 18:06, 25 October 2005 (EDT)

Those are hilarious "articles," thanks for the heads up on that one. It may have been a Freudian slip, however, I think you meant UnenCYCLOpedia, not UnenCYLO(N)pedia. ;) --Mason 23:33:25, 2005-10-25 (EDT)
Wow...didn't realize I did that....I'm spending way too much time in here.... Spencerian 10:31, 26 October 2005 (EDT)

The Latest Additions

...In particular, the picture of the toaster with the red-eye indicator, are just too frakking funny. Made me laugh on a day where laughter is very hard to come by; thanks Kahran and Joe. --Spencerian 10:42, 27 January 2006 (EST)

A Call for Standards

I propose that this page be reverted to the edit on 02:09, 8 October 2005. I have before expressed my personal belief that while certain of our "extra" articles may be fun (drinking games and such), turning this actual term from the series into a "silly" article has added nothing to it. The crux of it, is that as BSWiki editors, it is our responsibility to strive for accuracy, Non-POV statements, etc. "Toaster" is an actual term on the series. Making changes to it has shown that we have fallen away from our own high standards. At least, the high standards that I would like us to maintain, if I were in a position to do so.

Further: The two chief supporters of this current version seem to be Spencerian and April Arcus; Joe never commented on it one way or the other. Enough time has passed that we must re-evaluate the current consensus as to its fate, and then we must obey the Will of the Consensus. --->We need to assess how the current community stands on this: troll Jzanjani has been banned repeatedly, and if his ban has expired, he has chosen not to return here for months. Meanwhile, Users Day and SteelViper ascended to Administrator status well after the last time there was serious discussion as to the standardized form of this page, which would leave 2 Administrators for the current version, 2 Administrators whose views are unknown, and 1 Bureaucrat, Joe, who's view is either unknown, or he abstained. This decision must be made, and for the sake of accuracy, and the long-term standards which this wiki hopes to uphold, I for one support returning it to a standardized article. 5 by 5. --The Merovingian 04:42, 20 February 2006 (EST)

I don't think that our status as administrator should have anything to do with the matter. All it means is that we've got that little "delete" button above this article, and that's not even what is being proposed. If Spencerian's or Peter's opinions carry any more weight around here than others it is more due to their reputations as editors than anything else (at least that's how it is for me). As for being in a position to maintain high standards... I think you're very much in a position to do so. Not only through the use of the "edit" button on the articles, but also through establishing consensus on talk pages (exactly like you are doing now).
Since I'm here, though, I guess I'll share my opinion on this article. I like the middle stuff (actual use of the word within the series, with citations). While I'm not above ocassional silliness (I should delete at some point), links within the main article space should probably maintain the encyclopedic standards (in terms of S&C, and Citation Jihad). Perhaps a compromise could be reached, whereby a silly version of the page is linked to from here, but where the main article linked to by the main namespace would lead to the canon material. There's nothing wrong with a silly page now and again, but a user should probably know that they are going to be entering the silliness before they click on it, and I'm not sure that would be clear if you were just following a link to "Toaster". --Steelviper 14:45, 20 February 2006 (EST)
The reason I made a proposal in talk, Steelviper, was because I had previously tried to edit this page some months ago, and was voted down. I decided that enough time had passed that consensus might have changed, and to be polite and follow proper etiquette, I therefore made the proposal above. 5 by 5.--The Merovingian 19:56, 20 February 2006 (EST)
Striving for accuracy on the wiki as a whole is mission-critical, yes. Being anal about it is not. Even the BSG creators have some non sequitur fun in the show (as early as the miniseries with the cameo SF spacecraft), and this place is no different. The emphasis should always be on accuracy, but, as I already expressed on this page, silly pages here should and will remain rare. The majority has ruled (by censensus as they edit and by page views) as well as the minority long ago (and long before Joe elected anyone as admins). Frankly, Merv, you've lost this consensus a long time ago. Even Wikipedia has some silliness: See Wikipedia:Extreme ironing as one example. We still encourage you to just ignore the existence of these pages if they really bother you; the remainder of the wiki is properly encyclopedic. The proper definition of toaster is here; the rest is designed to keep all of us from taking this place too seriously, as should you. --Spencerian 22:30, 20 February 2006 (EST)

In all fairness Spencerian, it is somewhat premature to state that I have "lost" the consensus, when in fact, only you, myself, and SteelViper has as of this posting checked in yet. And SteelViper seems to be leaning more towards compromise/revision, rather than simply keeping it. I respect your opinion, and based on the earlier stuff I knew you would probably not support this change, however, not everyone might share this view towards sillyness on a page which is an actual article (within the show). I believe we should wait for further news. Meanwhile, I'll put it to vote:

Should this article be standardized, and no longer be a silly page? Vote for all outcomes which you would find acceptable.

Keep its current silly form
  1. We need the levity here far more than we need a dissertation on the use of the term "Toaster" in Battlestar Galactica. Maybe we can revisit this if we ever get more than Six's throwaway about it being a "racial epithet". --April Arcus 23:31, 20 February 2006 (EST)
  2. Keep as a silly page. --Spencerian 23:35, 20 February 2006 (EST)
  3. --Day 23:46, 20 February 2006 (EST)
  4. I like this page just the way it is. --Ltcrashdown 23:48, 20 February 2006 (EST)
  5. Don't see why we can't have a little fun here, once in a while. Besides, if we were to be serious about it, Toaster would really rediect to Cylons (RDM) article. -- Joe Beaudoin 00:25, 21 February 2006 (EST)
Keep as silly - its a fun article and perhaps if a little more sensible info was put at the top of the page then both parties could be happy? --Mercifull 03:41, 7 April 2006 (CDT)
Compromise of some kind (moving to "Silly" name space or something)
  1. --Day 23:46, 20 February 2006 (EST)
Standardize this article back to a non-silly terminology page
  1. Standardize it.--The Merovingian 23:17, 20 February 2006 (EST)
  2. This stuff belongs on Uncyclopedia, go there if you need a laugh. I seem to be on the losing side here though. Could we at least have the opening paragraph sensible? Otherwise we can't link to toaster to explain the word. --Undc23 02:04, 21 February 2006 (EST)

Day, I do not believe you can vote in more than one category. --The Merovingian 02:11, 21 February 2006 (EST)

Sure you can. I changed the rules before voting. ;) This would benefit, I think, from a similar voting system to the one used when discussing the spoiler policy. --Day 04:41, 22 February 2006 (EST) confused. Regardless, "although I hate to judge before all the facts are in" (Dr. Strangelove), I can see this probably won't pass; I'd wait a few days for stragglers, though. Well, the consensus has spoken; that great leveler. I cheerfully support these results. Voting thing is still confusing. --The Merovingian 04:59, 22 February 2006 (EST)
If this were a more divisive issue, I think it would make more sense. Everyone votes for whatever they'd find acceptable. Thus, whichever has the most votes is acceptable to the most people. It allows people to be able to note that they support one of the mutually exclusive cases, as well as a compromise. It's better explained on this archive of the Spoiler Policy talk. Sorry for being confusing. I can get like that. --Day 05:14, 22 February 2006 (EST)
Even the venerable Wikipedia has some fun now and then. Take, for instance, Extreme Ironing. --Spencerian 17:51, 13 May 2006 (CDT)

The Toaster's "Parent"

I'm afraid that the "Toaster" of the character box was born asexually (so to speak. Proctor-Silex implies two parents, while singular names imply one). I was in a kitchen shop the other day (don't ask why) and I saw that exact brand of toaster they used in the show for sale. It's made by Dualit. Even though the corporate logo was removed from the toaster's facade, I think the company of origin should be noted, if not as a parent then in a Notes section. Ideas anyone? --Homeworld616 22:54, 25 July 2006 (CDT)

If we have a source to back this up, I don't see why this piece of trivia shouldn't be included. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 07:55, 26 July 2006 (CDT)
For some reason, the notion of ensuring we have an accurate source for the brand of an actual toaster makes me giggle each time I think of it, in our desire for accuracy for even one of our most irreverent articles. :) --Spencerian 08:00, 26 July 2006 (CDT)
I found the toaster model on the website I linked over on, I believe, Sauron's talk page. --Talos 10:31, 26 July 2006 (CDT)
Yep, that's definitely the model I saw. I suppose that makes it official. Dualit is the Toaster's parent. --Homeworld616 10:44, 26 July 2006 (CDT)
External Link swiped from User talk:Sauron18.--Steelviper 10:45, 26 July 2006 (CDT)
Thanks, that's the one SV. I love how they covered up the name stamped on the toaster, they just screwed on a plate over it. --Talos 10:50, 26 July 2006 (CDT)
I agree Talos, that approach is rather humorous. It's not creative by any means, but brutally functional nonetheless. Too bad they couldn't have just pasted the name of a Colonial appliance company on the Toaster...otherwise I would have had another article to write! But could you imagine what it would be like if they hadn't covered the name and some fans noticed? An Earth company in the Colonies. I can only imagine the crazy theories that would surface on the Internet (a similar fiasco occured after the Miniseries, where Tigh said "Jesus." Since the fans knew that Christianity wasn't even known to the Colonies, some insane theories came out on threads).

Star Trek reference?

From the ST:TNG episode The Measure of a Man:

"You want me to try and prove that Data's a mere machine. I can't. I don't believe it. I know he's more than that. I'm neither qualified nor willing to do this. You're going to have to find someone else."
"Then I'll rule summarily based upon my findings. Data is a toaster. Have him report to Commander Maddox immediately for experimental refit."
- Riker and Phillipa

Is this why Cylons are called toasters?

Nah, it's cause the old-model centurions looked like, and I quote, "Walking chrome toasters". --BklynBruzer 00:29, 26 November 2006 (CST)

Flying toasters?

Scary thought now that you think about.... Anyone in agreement? DrWho42 19:44, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

Indeed. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 21:16, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
That's an old classic screen saver. Nostalgic. --Spencerian 23:17, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
Speaking of old classic screen savers, and nostalgia: Johnny Castaway. JubalHarshaw 08:06, 11 May 2007 (CDT)

Colbert Report

So I was watching the Colbert Report tonight (a rerun from before July 4th) and he was talking about the Transformers movie and he said: "Thanks Hollywood for teaching our children that in the face of danger they can just sit back and wait to be saved by a bunch of overgrown toaster ovens."

While not referencing Cylons, he was talking about another group of Sci-Fi robots, so I thought it was worth a minor mention here to you guys.--RUSnooky 23:11, 12 July 2007 (CDT)