User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr./Archive

For discussions prior to September 2, 2005, click here.

Character Pages...

I wasn't sure where to drop this, so I put it here... I thought about putting it in the update talk, but that didn't seem right, either. I wonder if we shouldn't standardize how the Character pages are laid out (aside from the Template:Character Data, I mean). For instance, Lee Adama's looks really sharp. Notice it's got the contents at the top, then his Bio (the title of which might be haggled over later Biography vs. Biographical Notes or whatever), which ties in nicely to the Character Data box. On the other hand, if a page is too short to have or organized such that it doesn't have contents, that might look a little odd (Cf. Day).

On the other hand, we could do something like Aaron Doral's page with the intro paragraph to kind of act as that spacer in lieu of the contents listing. However, in cases where you do have a contents listing this looks, to my eye, not as sharp (Cf. Agathon, Karl C. which will soon be moved by me to Karl C. Agathon assuming I can figure out how to do it).

So, Joe and anyone else reading this... Whatcha think? Should we do without the intro and go straight into the Bio with a level 2 heading so that our longer write-ups look sharper? Should we have that intro so that our longer write-ups look less sharp, but our shorter ones look more sharp? Or should we change this based on length, so that there's an intro paragraph if it's too short for contents, but no intro paragraph when it gets long enough for one?

OR is my aesthetic sense telling me wrong and you guys like things I think are "less sharp" and so we should go with some otehr scheme entirely? --Day 01:51, 31 August 2005 (EDT)

We had the same idea, day. I've started a project page at Battlestar Wiki:Characters. --Peter Farago 04:00, 31 August 2005 (EDT)

Wonderous! I'm going to move my character-based project notes from my User page to that project page. Collaboration and communication please me. --Day 04:16, 31 August 2005 (EDT)

Would you mind, Joe, changing the Template:Character Data talk page to reflect the new fields-that-can-be-invisible? This way we can go through and remove a bunch of people marked "Unknown." --Day 15:14, 9 September 2005 (EDT)

Deletions

Joe, could you either examine the move requests at Battlestar Wiki:Characters and assist us with moves to article titles already occupied with redirects, or enable me to delete the relevant redirects myself? --Peter Farago 04:53, 31 August 2005 (EDT)

I'll aid you as needed. Good project BTW. :-) -- Joe Beaudoin 09:05, 31 August 2005 (EDT)

Specifically, Joe, we need Karl Agathon and Gaius Baltar deleted so that we can move Agathon, Karl C. and Baltar, Gaius to them respectively. Thanks. --Day 17:18, 2 September 2005 (EDT)

Deleted and moved. Please make sure other pages use the Gaius Baltar and Karl Agathon links instead of the redirects! -- Joe Beaudoin 18:43, 2 September 2005 (EDT)

We'll keep our eyes out. Do redirects cause more strain on the server or is it more of a cleanliness issue? --Day 19:17, 2 September 2005 (EDT)

Cleanliness more than anything else. -- Joe Beaudoin 19:23, 2 September 2005 (EDT)

I wonder if you could delete this picture of Mason. For some reason, it won't upload right or something. I've tried (as you can see) a couple of times and I'd like to see if a fresh upload would work. Thanks. --Day 16:20, 13 September 2005 (EDT)

Spoiler Policy

I'm concerned that the discussion and vote on Battlestar Wiki talk:Spoiler Policy have wide participation, so as to provide a legitimate result. Would you consider advertising it in the site notice for a week or so? --Peter Farago 04:53, 31 August 2005 (EDT)

Will do. -- Joe Beaudoin 09:07, 31 August 2005 (EDT)

Ban request

Joe, I humbly request that you ban user "Philwelch", if you see fit to do so. On Wikipedia.org, he keeps flaming the Cylon and Battlestar Galactica pages, adamant in the belief that "12 Cylon Models" includes Centurions leaving only 11 humanoid ones (nonesensical). He's counterproductive and often makes unsubstantiated jumps of logic. Please, instill the fear of God in him.--Ricimer 31 Aug, 2005

Oh, let him be. It's not like the issue is cut and dried. Can't we just make a note of the controversy and leave it? --Peter Farago 13:58, 31 August 2005 (EDT)

Right now, my decision echos Peter's -- make a note of the issue regarding the ambiguity of the statement (because there is ambiguity present in that "12 Models of Cylon" statement) and ensure that all POVs and speculations are treated accordingly and with respect. -- Joe Beaudoin 18:39, 2 September 2005 (EDT)

Image Thumbs

Can we change the background color of image thumbs to black? The yellow links don't show up very well against white, currently. --Peter Farago 16:04, 2 September 2005 (EDT)

Planning on some cosmetic changes anyway. So I'll get right on it. -- Joe Beaudoin 16:29, 2 September 2005 (EDT)

I'd like to voice an opinion for dark grey or some shade. I think it's important to stand out against the black page background, but I agree the links are impossible to read. I'd been meditating on a proper solution for a couple days and dark grey doesn't entirely satisfy me, but it's better than either white or black. In my opinion, anyway. --Day 17:03, 2 September 2005 (EDT)

How about the red shade I've implemented? -- Joe Beaudoin 17:04, 2 September 2005 (EDT)

Hrm. Not what I'd expected, but not bad, either. The links are certainly readable now, and it fits more with the theme of the site, so I think it's a good call. --Day 17:17, 2 September 2005 (EDT)

Contents?

Joe... You may be messing with the contents boxes as I type this, but, for what it's worth, I liked them better on the left and not wrapped. If they stay right, we may have to reasses some of our aesthetic choices for character pages (or, actually, probably just edit the Character Data template to be left-aligned. It also bugs me that if there's not intro paragraph, the re line under the first topic and the red line un "Contents" don't line up in my browser. This is a small thing, I know. --Day 17:27, 2 September 2005 (EDT)

How about if the TOC is organized horizontally instead of vertically...? The only reason I aligned it to the right was because of all that wasted whitespace, which annoyed me personally. -- Joe Beaudoin 18:36, 2 September 2005 (EDT)

Horizontally? I guess I'd have to see it. I can't imagine what that means. I don't know if I'll be checking back in before Monday, but you might just change in and see how people react. I kind of liked the white space, but--that's me. When you're looking at how the TOC looks, you might look at Lee Adama as well as non-character articles to see how it looks when put into play. --Day 19:26, 2 September 2005 (EDT)

I strongly think you should revert them to the wikipedia monobook style. There was nothing wrong with them before. --Peter Farago 19:55, 2 September 2005 (EDT)

Good points. I've reversed the change. Still, I believe that there's a lot of wasted space done with the TOC. Don't know if anyone else agrees, but I'd be willing to consider any suggestions. -- Joe Beaudoin 21:02, 2 September 2005 (EDT)

Honestly, my opinion is that the guys at Wikipedia spend far more hours and energy agonizing over these things than we could ever put in. Short of a tasteful color scheme, my feeling is that we should put our energy into creating high-quality content here, not a signature web design. --Peter Farago 21:34, 2 September 2005 (EDT)

Battlestar Wiki:Standards and Conventions

Joe. I went ahead and made the above-linked page. Over at the Characters project page, we got into a debate about verb tense. This would also be applicable for other articles, especially episode guides. There've got to be plenty of other things that would go on a Project Page except that they apply to several projects (or all). If there's already something like this, then I apologize and just point me (and Peter and Colonial One) at it and we'll get to debating standards, etc. I felt I should point this page-creation out to you so that it might get mention in the little announce box thing when something is under discussion that's important and needs a significant consensus. Also, because you might be interested and you might like to weigh in on things. In fact, I think there might be a couple of topics on this very talk page that could be moved to the talk page of Standards and Conventions at your descretion. --Day 05:14, 10 September 2005 (EDT)

"New Message" problem

Hi Joe. Day suggested I contact you about the problem I'm having with the "new message" message--It won't go away, even after I've checked my messages. He said that you've run into this problem before. Can you help me? Thanks. --Fang Aili 17:33, 13 September 2005 (EDT)