Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Battlestar Galactica

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Project directory 2 Naming conventions 3 And now, to work... 4 More lightheartedly... 5 Categorising related people 6 Regular Cast template 7 TOS character boxes 8 {{Galactica-stub}} 9 Season number conventions 10 Article names, spoilers, and continuity

[edit] Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. Also, I note that yours is a comparatively new project. You may be interested in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide, which has a lot of information regarding project organization from several of the most successful WikiProjects. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.

[edit] Naming conventions

I've learned a lot of this the hard way, so I'm passing it along here before too much more confusion occurs around BSG articles.

When creating an article on a single episode of a television series, the article name should only consist of the title of the episode unless further disambiguation is needed. (See Wikipedia:Disambiguation, followed by Wikipedia:WikiProject_Television_episodes#Structure_of_an_episode_article, followed by WP:TV-NC.)

Examples

• Baltar's Escape (No disambiguation necessary)
• The Long Patrol (Battlestar Galactica) (disambiguated from The Long Patrol, a Brian Jacques novel)

Multi-part episodes should have only one article about the entire episode. (See Wikipedia:WikiProject_List_of_Television_Episodes/structure#Episode_titles.)

Examples

• War of the Gods
• The Living Legend

I hope this helps abate any further confusion to editors creating and linking episode article titles. --BlueSquadronRaven 23:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, that convention is the opinion of a [select] few users. I recommend for clarity and consistency, we include the suffix on all episodes. That is the way we have been doing it for a long time. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I know this may potentially be a sore issue, but I think we need to adhere to whatever consensus is reached at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television). It looks like the issue may head to arbitration, though I haven't been keeping up over the last few days. If it's decided that all series should follow "disambiguate only when necessary", that's what we should do here. Once the debate ends and the "disputed" tag is removed from the guideline, we're pretty much bound to whatever the outcome is. -- Fru1tbat 03:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The fact is there is *no* consensus – There are a few users proclaiming consensus and pushing there POV, and the fact is no one wishes to get involved as there likely to scared. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 03:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily saying there is consensus. I'm saying that when discussion/arbitration/whatever is concluded, we are pretty much bound to the resulting guideline. Until then, it's not really worth deciding here. -- Fru1tbat 03:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Fru1tbat, I think that your concern is valid; however, I would still ask, if it is decided that the WikiProject does have authority to decide naming conventions for BSG episodes, which format would you prefer? --Elonka 04:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It's probably too late for me to get involved at this point, since I'm not a party to the mediation, and my opinion won't have any effect... --Fru1tbat 13:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I actually only posted it due to this. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 03:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, since it's my post there that started this discussion, I'll explain my logic. Yes, there is a great deal of discussion and contention at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(television) over whether or not articles on individual episodes of a television series should automatically have the name of the series added on in parenthesis as though being disambiguated from anything else on Wikipedia. At the rate it's going, this discussion is either going to head for yet another straw poll, or, worse, to mediation and/or the ArbCom. However, while this discussion is serving to set guidelines for a certain type of article on Wikipedia, there is still the guidelines at Wikipedia:Disambiguation. These guidelines are not in contention, they are the product of consensus, and they are equally applicable to all types of Wikipedia articles. Indeed, when I was creating many of the articles for episodes of the original series, those guidelines, not the ones at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(television), were what I had quoted to me after disambiguating every article (even though, as it stands, the Naming Conventions guidelines currently state the same thing, and will until discussion is resolved, at least). Should discussions lead to a change in naming conventions for this type of article, I'll revise the above appropriately, but until then, WP:D would seem to be the higher authority. On a purely personal level, I will also state the opinion that parenthesis in article titles look terrible, from an aesthetic point of view, though I realize their necessity when disambiguation is required. --BlueSquadronRaven 22:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Guideline.. not policy.. Guideline, remember it is not policy, Guidelines, they are not policy, Policy is a policy, a guideline while much like a policy is a guideline just not a policy. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Guidelines exist because a consensus of editors think they're a good idea. As it is, the discussion is largely being driven by individuals regarding only one television series. By your logic, then, the entire discussion at WP:TV-NC is meaningless and the outcome can be ignored. In which case, I propose the above stand regardless and will, for my above stated personal opions, work towards that end. (See the chaos that could thus result?) --BlueSquadronRaven 23:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

"G'Kar: It was the end of the Earth year 2260, and the war had paused, suddenly and unexpectedly. All around us, it was as if the universe were holding its breath… waiting. All of life can be broken down into moments of transition, or moments… of revelation. This had the feeling of both. […] G'Quan wrote, "There is a greater darkness than the one we fight. It is the darkness of the soul that has lost its way. The war we fight is not against powers and principalities, it is against chaos and despair. Greater than the death of flesh is the death of hope. The death of dreams. Against this peril we can never surrender." The future is all around us, waiting in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future, or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born… in pain."

""T. C." McQueen: We thought we were alone. We believed the universe was ours. Until one night in 2063, on a Earth colony 16 light-years away, they struck. Now we are at war. We fight when called, in space, on land, and at sea. To lose this war means more than defeat, to surrender is to never go home. All of us must rise to the call.. above and beyond." thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] And now, to work...

There are two main tasks that the project can begin work on right away. First, there are a number of articles on original series episodes which, while linked, have little substance to them as yet. They can be found in Category:Battlestar Galactica (1978) episodes. Second, there is the ongoing task of creating articles for episodes of the new Battlestar Galactica as they are shown, linking them to various lists and to other articles, and categorizing them in Category:Battlestar Galactica (2004) episodes. If you're specifically volunteering for any one article, please consider leaving a note here for other project members to let them know how you're progressing, or for any other comments and the like. --BlueSquadronRaven 22:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More lightheartedly...

I invite any and all members to help design a project userbox and award. Please keep in mind neither of these can use fair-use images, so if anyone has some better graphic-making experience than yours truly, please feel free to show off! The userbox will ultimately be kept at a subpage of the project, while the award will likely be in Template: space. --BlueSquadronRaven 22:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categorising related people

I noticed that there is now a category for actors to be distinguished between the original series and that of the re-imagined series. However, there sits a vacant ambiguous actor category and a mix-matched cast and crew category. I'm thinking that the main actor category should be deleted with the category for the two series actors being categorised as "cast and crew" each. Anyone agree? I have nothing against categorising actors spcifically by which version they appear in, but it seems pointless to have two related categories like "Battlestar Galactica actors" and "Battlestar Galactica cast and crew" when we can cut out a middleman here. --Bacteria 12:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Heh, that was me, and that was my intention, but I hadn't finished. I thought the generic "Cast and crew" category was a little ambiguous too, so, feel free to move out any others that need to be. The only two in that category that fit more as "crew" than "cast" are Glen Larson and Ronald Moore. For now I think they can go into the main Category:Battlestar Galactica. As for the ambiguous "Actors" category, which has the two subcategories by series, I was thinking there of the way the episodes category is also that way, with subcategories for eache series as well as a catchall for things like a disambiguation page for The Hand of God (Battlestar Galactica). Having that space might be useful. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regular Cast template

What are the criteria for inclusion into the Regular Cast template? That they appear in the opening credits?

I think that for Season 3, Number 3 should be included into the Regular Cast template, because she is just so prominent. 132.205.93.19 04:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you tell us the name of the template, please? --BlueSquadronRaven 04:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Battlestar Galactica regulars 132.205.93.31 02:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, it seems to be a process of editing as with most things. There's no discussion page, only the editing history. It's a nice template, though, and I think a similar one should be made for the original series. --BlueSquadronRaven 04:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TOS character boxes

The TOS character boxes use a shade of red and not yellow in their name bar... but the BSG Character template makes no mention of this. 132.205.93.19 04:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It is the same template. The colour of the name bar is alterable. Yellow is the default colour but whoever put the template on character articles from the orignal series made them all red instead. --BlueSquadronRaven 04:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{Galactica-stub}}

A new stub template has been created specifically for BSG-related articles. When starting a new article that needs to be marked as a stub, include {{Galactica-stub}} at the bottom of the page to indicate that it is about BSG. This will also place it in a special category, Category:Battlestar Galactica stubs, which can be referred to by others who can expand on the articles. For those articles that are already stubs, you can put this stub template in place of other similar stubs. In general, {{Galactica-stub}} should replace {{sf-stub}}, {{sf-tv-stub}} or {{sf-char-stub}} in any BSG stubs. --BlueSquadronRaven 04:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I generally don't think there is a need for this stub - it is also very hard to oppose a stub when you do not actually notify the project.. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs • count • email) 16:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Noted for future reference. --BlueSquadronRaven 19:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Season number conventions

I think some guidance needs to be added to the project page regarding season numbers. I'm cutting and pasting a comment (and the only reply) I made in September at Talk:Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series)#Season numbers:

There seems to be a general habit in the BSG articles to refer to the two halves of Season 2 as if they were separate seasons, and use the US DVD release scheme (2.0, 2.5). There are several reasons why this is a bad idea:

• The official scifi.com website doesn't use them for its official lists (episodes, etc.)
• This is the English Wikipedia, not the US Wikipedia. "2.0" and "2.5" are specific to certain regions (North America).
• Many shows are released on DVD in volumes that don't maintain broadcast or production groupings (or even order, in some cases). Using the DVD nomenclature is nonstandard and sets a bad and confusing precedent.

"2.0" and "2.5" may be convenient shorthand, and various people involved with the show's production may sometimes use the terms as such, but until official lists use the nomenclature, I think we're better off confining the terms to discussions of the DVDs in most cases. -- Fru1tbat 12:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be one season, it's a US centric viewpoint that only came around because they had a longer than average mid-season break and the DVDs have been released as a US experiment based on the current European TV DVD sales tactic of splitting seasons in two and selling them as two separate box sets (the cynical amoung us would say to get the studios more money but that can't possibly be true, can it? )Ben W Bell talk 13:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Since I made that comment, I've noticed various references to "Season 0", "Season 3.0", etc. I'm assuming for now that "Season 0" is meant to refer to the miniseries, and not to events before the show began (the latter we can deal with separately). I think we're better off not using any designation earlier than "Season 1", to simplify things. I'd prefer to consider the miniseries to be the pilot, and part of season 1. If anyone has a better idea, though, I'm open to suggestions.

"Season 3.0" (or any other arbitrary decimal season notation), on the other hand, is meaningless. If anyone wants to chronicle events in smaller terms, the episode name should probably be used instead. That being said, the purpose of infoboxes and the like is not to provide exhaustive or detailed accounts, etc, but rather to summarize/overview. If a character is promoted from Lieutenant to Captain mid-season, it's perfectly reasonable in a summary listing like an infobox to say that their rank was Lieutenant in Seasons 1 and 2, and Captain in Seasons 2 and 3 (the ranges need not be mutually exclusive). More detail can be provided in the character bio, if it's important. Comments? If there are no objections, I'd like to start a new section on the project page, something like "Article guidelines", and include information like this.
-- Fru1tbat 15:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Oi, vey, the changing face of media productions makes for some chaotic classification, doesn't it? I'm tempted to agree on keeping it as simple as possible, and rather than using ideas like "Season 2.5" that an outside reader of the articles might not have a clue about, that we should continue to call a spade a spade, use whole numbers specifically for the seasons of episodes that aired on TV, and refer to the web-based episodes as such. Thoughts?--BlueSquadronRaven 23:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article names, spoilers, and continuity

I had a discussion a month or so ago at Talk:Cally Tyrol#Cally's first/last name about the name of the article. I requested comment ([1]) on the disagreement but didn't get any bites, and I still feel there are several problems with the current name:

1. The title includes a blatant spoiler (see WP:SW)
2. The title becomes relevant to only part of the character's continuity (i.e., "Cally Tyrol" doesn't exist before the end of the second season, and when writing about fiction, all events depicted are in "the present" - see WP:BETTER#Check your fiction)

I proposed moving the article to Cally (Battlestar Galactica), which solves the problems mentioned above and appears to violate no Wikipedia policies or guidelines. The arguments against this move were:

1. It doesn't follow the "first-name last-name" style of other 2004 BSG series character articles
2. It's her actual name now
3. The previous article name (Specialist Cally) was improper

My rebuttal (I left some of this off the original discussion so the debate wouldn't escalate while comment was sought. Maybe that was a poor choice):

1. In terms of importance, spoiler and proper perspective issues should trump consistency in article names.
2. The fact that it's her actual name now is exactly why the article title is a problem, precisely for the reasons I mentioned in proposing the move.
3. I agree that the previous name was improper. That point is irrelevant, as I am not proposing moving the article back to its original name. The debate is about the appropriateness of the current one.

The reason I bring this up here is that I feel an agreement needs to be reached for all BSG articles, as characters marry/divorce/whatever in the future of the series. Thoughts? --Fru1tbat 19:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler warnings are irrelevant, due warning is already given in the content disclaimer. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler warnings are standard in practically every article on fiction on Wikipedia that I've seen. Regardless of the content disclaimer, they appear to have achieved broad consensus for inclusion, and so are hardly irrelevant. --Fru1tbat 20:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You'll notice that it is a _guideline_ not a policy - should we rename New Caprica.. that is just as spoilerific? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the name "New Caprica" is a spoiler, as is any article on a character or location that isn't seen at the beginning of the series. It's also completely irrelevant. Since the entire subject is about events that takes place later in the series, it therefore wouldn't normally be referenced (i.e. stumbled upon) outside of spaces that obviously contain spoilers. Nobody that's trying to avoid spoilers would type in "New Caprica", or be likely to read a section that would link to it. Cally Tyrol, on the other hand, is a separate issue.

This side debate doesn't really address the issues, though. What it boils down to is this: The current title is problematic to varying degrees to a set of editors (i.e. those in favor of spoiler warnings). The proposed title offends no guideline (yes, they're guidelines, but they're there for a reason, i.e. consensus was that they make sense), and is only irksome in that it doesn't happen to follow the style of a subset of articles on this subject. The latter alone shouldn't be grounds to reject the renaming. Not to mention the disagreement on the spoiler issue fails to address proposal point #2 at all, which is actually of greater concern to me (I probably should have listed it first).

--Fru1tbat 20:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)