User talk:Fru1tbat/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

Contents

My "This album" edits

Yes, you are correct. -- Fantailfan 13:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

BSG moving

Sorry 'bout that. It just made more sense to me since the series are called "1978 ..." and "2004 ...". I guess I'll just have to wait for a second miniseries. :) --Pax:Vobiscum 10:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Your vandalism

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chairmanofall (talk • contribs) 12:23, October 20, 2006 (UTC).

My vandalsim? Your edit removed content, unlinked or reformatted properly linked/correctly formatted dates into incorrect dates, broke properly disambiguated links, and added a link to the same live-stream that plenty of other more obvious vandals have added in the past. My considering your edit to be vandalism (though more subtle than usual) and reversion of it was well-founded, in my opinion, and justified. Explain yours. -- Fru1tbat 12:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome aboard!

Glad to see another has joined WikiProject Battlestar Galactica. Thanks also for your help regarding naming conventions for articles on multi-part episodes. As you've probably gathered, the project is in its infancy but I'm hoping that, with help, it will pick up steam soon. Thanks once again for joining, and I look forward to working with you in future. --BlueSquadronRaven 23:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey

Thanks for your help with the KJ-52 album pages. Don't think it went unnoticed. I appreciate it. — Phantasy Phanatik | talk | contribs 09:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

nowiki tags

Maybe it's just me but I dont see a difference :-\ ? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Present tense in articles on fictional matter

Could you please explain why you are such a strong adherent of the view that all fictional works should be documented in the present tense? I recognise it as a valid viewpoint, but I think that past tense documentation is equally descriptive, and sometimes works better: to take a specific example from the Battlestar Galactica pages, it might be confusing to say that Saul Tigh is married to his late wife, Ellen Tigh. Judicious use of the past tense (and, occasionally, the pluperfect tense) helps to make the sequence of events in a fictional work more clear. When one watches an episode, one is watching it "in the present tense". But what about flashbacks? And what of books that are written in the past tense? I'm curious to sound you out on this, not start a war over it! :-) Sullivan.t.j 17:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It's just the way Wikipedia is supposed to be written, generally, according to various style guides (see WP:BETTER, for instance). It's also standard style when writing about fictional events, at least for out-of-universe sources (which Wikipedia is). You're right that it's awkward to read that Saul Tigh "is" married to Ellen, but then again, I probably wouldn't write it exactly like that. It's worse to say he was married to Ellen, since that implies a specific perspective where the events are treated like a historical account, whereas as you said, they're experienced in the present tense. To say that someone did something or was something places them as a single event, when instead they're experienced anew with every viewing, and they happen again and again. When someone watches the beginning of the series, Saul is married to Ellen. Adama is a Commander, not an Admiral. As a reader, I shouldn't expect to find an encyclopedia article that discusses an event as if it were a single historical occurrence...
Pluperfect, though, is different, and sounds fine to me when used appropriately, since it places events relative to the event being written about, not relative to an absolute timeframe (e.g. "Roslin becomes concerned about Baltar's involvement because she realizes she had seen him with Six previously." -- here, present and pluperfect work just fine together). Even past tense might be ok in a context like this; just not in general.
I think where there seems to be a conflict, the top priority is to keep the perspective correct. There's no reason, for example, that the Tigh article intro line can't just say that he's a fictional character, and note who plays him, omitting the rest. The beginning of the spoiler section should establish that he's Galactica's XO and that he's married to Ellen, within the proper timeframe context. The way the intro is currently written is problematic...
-- Fru1tbat 04:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:BSG-Husker-Viper1.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:BSG-Husker-Viper1.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 18:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:BSGMini-00 10 37-part.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:BSGMini-00 10 37-part.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 18:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

To link to images without including them, you add a colon before the image (e.g. [[:Image:BSGMini-00 10 37-part.jpg]]). It might also be a good idea to add a {{not orphan}} tag to the images to explain that they are used, even if they appear to be orphaned. --Fritz S. (Talk) 10:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

BSG

Hiya, I understand your concerns about the mediation, but your opinion really does matter to me.  :) If it were up to you, how would you like to see the BSG articles named? With consistent suffixes, or only using a suffix if absolutely needed because there was already some other article with the same name? (and feel free to offer another option if neither of those accurately represents your opinion) --Elonka 04:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

My personal feeling, purely on aesthetics, is that specifiers (a.k.a. clarifiers/disambiguators/whatever) make titles look messy. I wish they weren't necessary at all, but of course, multiple identical names are impossible with all articles in the same namespace.
Taking the larger issue into account, I think it sets a bad precedent when all articles in a certain category are given the same specifier. Why use one system for one subject and not for others? It also seems rather arbitrary to apply it only to episode titles, and not to every article relating to a series.
As far as I'm concerned, title specifiers are a necessary evil that should only be used for distinguishing multiple ambiguous article titles from one another, not for anything else that can be accomplished by the article itself (context, etc).
--Fru1tbat 02:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much, I appreciate your taking the time to let me know.  :) --Elonka 03:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry; It's me getting confused. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Battlestar Valkyrie links

(re: [1])
Hi. I appreciate your comments regarding links to Battlestar Valkyrie. As it happened, I was inspired by the actions of User:132.205.93.205, who redirected the Valkyrie page to List#Valykrie at 02:34, 13 December 2006. I thought that this was a good move, saving users who search for "Battlestar Valkyrie" from then having to scroll down the list (even to find the link in the contents box!); I thought that the small confusion of not seeing "Redirected from..." at the top of the page would be an acceptable price to pay. The great advantage, to my mind, was that editors of pages linking to the Valkyrie could now use the short form of the link rather than a pipe link 9 words long. :-)

I know how those users who keep a weather eye on the BSG section like to keep it from becoming over-populated with small articles, but perhaps we should do something about this list? I would suggest that (on the grounds that they are the longest entries) the Astral Queen and the Valkyrie, and perhaps the Olympic Carrier as well, should be split off from the list into their own articles, with Main article:... and one-line summaries in the list. This would follow the precedent established by the list of minor characters. There, too, there are some characters that have appeared only once, but have enough material to make a list entry unwieldy, hence split/main article/one-liner. Your thoughts on this? Sullivan.t.j 12:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Unsigned template bug?

(original comment)

Re: your edit to {{Unsigned}}, the template as currently implemented results in the #if parser function being placed on the page when the template is subst'd (e.g.: <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:NonExistentUser|NonExistentUser]] ([[User talk:NonExistentUser|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/NonExistentUser|contribs]]){{#if:00:11 22 March 4455| 00:11 22 March 4455|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->). Ideally, shouldn't the parser be subst'd in the template code as well? The page is protected, so either way, I wouldn't be able to change it, but I thought you might. Thanks. --Fru1tbat 14:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello! That isn't a coding bug. It's a software limitation. The template contained some "garbage" syntax even before the edit in question. —David Levy 14:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
My template skills aren't all that advanced right now, but shouldn't there be a way to retain proper functionality but remove the actual code when subst'ing the template? Or is it a choice between one or the other, but not both? For example: {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>#if:{{{2|}}}|&#32;{{{2}}}|}} works (i.e. gets rid of the parser in the resulting code) when subst'ing, but not when transcluding. I don't suppose there's a way to make it work in both cases... --Fru1tbat 15:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
That's correct. To my knowledge, the current setup is the only one that displays the intended text under both template insertion methods. —David Levy 15:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
What we need is for the developers to add an "#ifsubst" command to the software (thereby enabling the specification of specific code to call only when the template is substituted).
After typing the above, I discovered that we have a template with that very name and purpose: Template:Ifsubst. I'll investigate its possible use. —David Levy 15:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The template doesn't appear to be compatible with this specific application (and it's an ugly kludge in any case). It seems that we'll need to wait for the developers to add the actual "#ifsubst" syntax. —David Levy 15:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


Courtesy note about ArbCom proceeding

Hiya, sorry to bother you, but I wanted to drop you a courtesy note to let you know about a current ArbCom proceeding where your name is briefly mentioned. If you are not familiar with ArbCom, please do not be alarmed. In real-world terms, this is sort of like stating that your name is being mentioned as one of the witnesses (or possibly even bystanders) to a case. ArbCom cases tend to be somewhat large and chaotic, but if you would like to watch the proceedings, you may wish to set Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions on your watchlist. Your own name is probably somewhere on the evidence page, or possibly at the workshop page. The case is currently in an "evidence-gathering" phase and has not yet reached the state of actual comment by arbitrators yet. My guess is it'll probably run for another month or so before a decision is finalized.

No action is needed on your part, this is just a courtesy note. If you would like to participate in the case though, you are more than welcome. You may wish to offer a statement with your view of events at the case's talkpage, or you can add evidence or participate in the workshop. Many editors routinely participate in ArbCom proceedings regardless of whether or not they are directly involved in the case, since ArbCom rulings are considered "binding" and may have ramifications in other parts of Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, let me know, or feel free to post at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions. Best, Elonka 05:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)