Battlestar Wiki talk:Citation Jihad

Expunge List

Is there any central list of articles that need to be "expunged" per the new source policy? One example I found on Citation Jihad mission list:

• The case of "Joyce" Hadrian

I wasn't 100% sure that the "Joyce" bit needed to be pulled, but I thought I'd note it so somebody more confident of the application of the rules might smite it. --Steelviper 12:23, 10 May 2006 (CDT)

It's been listed for months, and nobody's offered a source. We can probably smite it. --Peter Farago 12:32, 10 May 2006 (CDT)

So it sounds like this is more of one of those "shoot on sight" situations rather than the elaborate recon, paint it with a laser, and drop a laser-guided "smart bomb" on it type of operations. So there won't be a "articles with anonymous/unofficial sources" categories or anything, as (hopefully) it would quickly be rendered obsolete? --Steelviper 12:40, 10 May 2006 (CDT)

Well, as you're aware, I like to extend new contributors the benefit of the doubt. So "shoot on sight" isn't quite right - it might still be useful to keep a section of this page for tracking dubious submissions. --Peter Farago 12:45, 10 May 2006 (CDT)

Concur. While I did go through and outright delete the episode pages that contained "info" from unofficial sources, there may be things that slip through here are there. I'm not opposed to having a list kept here, or even at the Quorum for such things. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 12:59, 10 May 2006 (CDT)

SkyOne Bios

In response to the canonicity of the names Evelyn Adama and Dreilide Thrace, Merv wrote on Talk:Arts and Literature of the Twelve Colonies:

I don't know if we should [include them]: A) SkyOne isn't a definative source B) most importantly, This SkyOne information was *taken down*. It no longer exists online. Maybe they took it down....because it was no longer "correct"? I've pointed out in several character bios, notably Galactica-Sharon, that information from SkyOne's old bio stuff has in fact been contradicted several times by new information.

You are right: I was unaware that that was the sole source of William Adama's mother's name (his father's name is engraved on the lighter), but if SkyOne is indeed the sole source of this info I'm going to slap a proposal for deletion on "Evelyn Adama". We really shouldn't use it if it's not from Scifi, and was actually removed. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 18:33, 21 May 2006 (CDT)

A few points:

1. SkyOne and SciFi were co-equal partners in funding the first season. Any information from SkyOne is going to be just as accurate or innacurate as any information from SciFi, so we shouldn't employ a double standard.
2. You are correct that SkyOne's bios have been contradicted from time to time, as has some of SciFi's material. Our current policy is to defer to aired information, but to permit the use of other sources where no conflict exists. Do you object to this?
3. Although some portions have been discredited, other parts of the SkyOne bios have been born out by laters events - particularly, Thrace's father as a musician. It seems likely that the bios originated with information from the series bible, or at least benefited from the input of the writing staff - that is to say, they may not just be corporate fan fiction, but seem to have at least some reference value.

--Peter Farago 18:58, 21 May 2006 (CDT)

Oh I don't think there are corporate fan fiction, I just think it's based on extremely early material which might not even be from the series bible (and even the series bible has been contradicted when new stories required it). We might *note* within the William Adama article that "Mother: Evelyn" (clickable reference number leading to bottom of page)--->source, SkyOne season 1 bio; not necessarily canonical. ---->But my point is, I don't think it justifies an article. And I also don't think Starbuck's father's tentative name should be used a lot, just as a trivia note on the Starbuck article. It's like the Miniseries novelization thing: we got hung up on that name the author made up for her, Natasi, as a matter of convenience, until it came to the point that it was apparent that no one else really called her that. My point being, we use a term of convenience, we just reinforce it. No, I don't think SkyOne's info is entirely accurate, as it was taken down. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 20:21, 21 May 2006 (CDT)

Sky One actually invested a lot of money into the first series of BSG, it even aired in the UK before it did in the US. I dont think you can completely rule out anyhting Sky One says as a source. --Mercifull 03:05, 22 May 2006 (CDT)

I still feel that all of this old SkyOne information, which no longer exists online, should be removed. It's not a matter of "Scifi.com was innacurrate on points just as Skyone was"--->while Scifi.com has a few problems, the SkyOne bios are filled with innacuracies. They don't match many things from the show. A few things were vaguely similar but that's not enough to validate the other information. As I said before: no one has this information anywhere else anymore, we're the only one's keeping it alive and in so doing we're effectively making BattlestarWiki a primary source, contrary to our mission. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 11:05, 20 June 2006 (CDT)

No Shane, you misunderstand: it's not that this is SkyOne or Skiffy, it's that the page was taken down: these articles no longer exist online at SkyOne. When I went to check (months ago) they weren't there, and someone told me there WERE there but were taken down. Far from a "blacklisting", it's information that's no longer extant. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 11:48, 20 June 2006 (CDT)

Just by clarity, wouldn't this be a clear "blacklist" of an official site? --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 11:43, 20 June 2006 (CDT)

As far as I can tell the SkyOne bios are gone from Skyone (I could be wrong.). I think that Merv is only talking about them. In that case, I think that the SkyOne Bios info should be deleted. The only caveat is that the same incorrect info may crop back up in the the future. If the info is somewhere and shown in error, then it may save work in the future having to make corrects. Make the section can be condensed down to just the "errors." Sorry, got to rambling. --FrankieG 11:51, 20 June 2006 (CDT)

What are the old URLs? --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 11:51, 20 June 2006 (CDT)

I don't even know: these articles are nowhere to be found on SkyOne. Someone copied them before they were removed, then posted them here later. By the time it was brought to my attention, the URL's were already gone. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 12:05, 20 June 2006 (CDT)

With that, I'm more for removing these bios, as they are now just as unsourced as the Zoic information on "other" battlestars like Galactica. With the series and its characters sufficiently matured, I find little use for these bios; we know far more about them from aired than unaired data, and this stuff can no longer be verified and sometimes conflicts. --Spencerian 12:10, 20 June 2006 (CDT)

Please refer to our previous discussion at Talk:Laura_Roslin#Source_for_SkyOne.3F, which contains a link to the best original source currently available. --Peter Farago 13:32, 20 June 2006 (CDT)

If that's the best source, let's expunge the information. --CalculatinAvatar^(C-T) 13:45, 20 June 2006 (CDT)

I recall seeing the information at Sky One, but I understand why you think personal testimony is flimsy here. --Peter Farago 15:48, 20 June 2006 (CDT)

This brings up a interesting question. What to do when an official source goes away? --FrankieG 16:25, 20 June 2006 (CDT)

I disagree with storing the information to blacklist it. Anything added without source should go, so it'd be redundant, and, more importantly, it might lead to the deletion of canon material because it was mentioned by a non-canon source before. --CalculatinAvatar^(C-T) 13:45, 20 June 2006 (CDT)

I was just playing devil's advocate that was the only reason I could come up to keep. Is a vote necessary? Seems like the existing policy covers it to me and consensus is clear. --FrankieG 14:56, 20 June 2006 (CDT)

In regards to the above comments, we could always use The Wayback Machine to see if a cached version of the pages in question still exist. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 16:49, 20 June 2006 (CDT)

That's why I was wondering about the URL's --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 17:18, 20 June 2006 (CDT)

After some intense searching for URL's, a possiblity that I can up with is that these bios' may have came from SkyActive, a SkyOne related interactive service that no longer exists. I found one reference where someone had typed them up off the service and posted them. --FrankieG 18:50, 20 June 2006 (CDT)

Ah yes i remember that. After each episode you could press the red button to get information on the episode and various series "facts" --Mercifull 19:18, 20 June 2006 (CDT)

We need to find out the final verdict on this, instead of delaying and getting behind on it. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 21:15, 28 June 2006 (CDT)

I concur, Merv. I say, since we can no longer corroborate it, we have to toss it. How useful are they now, anyway? --Day ^{(Talk - Admin)} 14:40, 29 June 2006 (CDT)

Deletion

I saw that Steelviper just deleted Sources:Sky One Profile of William Adama. I don't think this discussion reached a consensus to do this, but I wouldn't object if SV wanted to open a straw poll. --Peter Farago 14:22, 28 June 2006 (CDT)

Actually, I deleted the "Sources" article, based not on this discussion (which, I admit, I hadn't been following that closely), but more on the individual instance of not having a source for that particular bio. The "Sources" article was almost an orphan in reality anyway, as I had just created it in order to save space on Spence's demo of a more concise William Adama. The "actual" main space reference was located in "William Adama" itself. I'll happily restore it, though, if that's what people want. I didn't mean to step on the toes of the mujahadin. --Steelviper 14:31, 28 June 2006 (CDT)

Well, I see your point, but I think the first thing to do is figure out a coherent policy toward the purported SkyOne info. After that, we can apply a consistant policy to all six bios and any pages citing them. I wonder if Bradley Thompson could help us confirm them in the absence of any wayback archives? --Peter Farago 14:34, 28 June 2006 (CDT)

Now that the bio info is back in the William Adama article... do we need the "Sources" article? It seems like we should either transclude the "Sources" article or link to it from William Adama (with just a quick summary blurb on the main article) or dump the "Sources" article and let William Adama serve as the source. I'm just looking to get rid of the redundancy at this point. --Steelviper 14:38, 28 June 2006 (CDT)

From Battlestar Wiki:Official Communiques#SkyOne Biography Canonicity, I think that these are "unofficial" enough that we should either delete them, or move them to the Series Bible page; maybe move them to the Series Bible page, but remove references to this information from all the other articles. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 13:21, 7 July 2006 (CDT)

I'm moving this info to the Series Bible page, and will move discussion about deleting it entirely from BattlestarWiki to there. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 12:18, 19 July 2006 (CDT)

About the Jihad Badge

Very nice. What's the arabic text inside the text bubble? Is it "jihad?" Those badges really contribute to the overall look of the wiki, so kudos to those that add/augment them. --Spencerian 11:37, 22 May 2006 (CDT)

Props go to Mercifull. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 12:18, 22 May 2006 (CDT)

Yeah its the arabic for jihad :P --Mercifull 12:31, 22 May 2006 (CDT)

(grumble) well you all know what I'd say on the subject, but compliments to Mercifull for his efforts/skillz :) --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 12:34, 22 May 2006 (CDT)

Font Size in References List

Shane write:

If you use this method, please make sure the <references/> tag is flanked like so: <div style="font-size:85%"><references/></div>

I believe that this font size can be controlled in the stylesheet, which would be a better choice than encoding the style information on a per-page basis. --Peter Farago 13:06, 3 June 2006 (CDT)

I'm creating it in my CSS sheet for the new style but until then it is not active. class = "ref" --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 13:19, 3 June 2006 (CDT)

It doesn't need a class. Just make all reference tags be 85%. If you wish it, I'll post the appropriate CSS rule here. I'm just having a mental block at the moment. --Day ^{(Talk - Admin)} 19:53, 28 June 2006 (CDT)

Acceptable Sources

God, what a disappointment. Everybody has been saying, Read the guide on acceptable sources, read the guide on acceptable sources, and now I have and it turns out this site is just a conduit for official pronouncements from the producers and annointed BSG sources. There is an enormous universe of sources out there and many of them are reliable and acceptable without amounting to spoon-feeding from the producers of the show. What about TV Guide? I noticed it does not conform to acceptable-source criteria, yet I would hesitate to dub them unreliable and relegate them to being unusable as a source. I guess I don't understand what people are doing here, and what this site is trying to be. --Elach 17:39, 14 July 2006 (CDT)

Not all intermediate sources are discounted. Just anonymous information. If TV Guide has a information from the BSG crew. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 17:54, 14 July 2006 (CDT)

Elach, I grant you that most of our sources are going to be official ones, since most of the work thus far has been regarding the fictional part of Battlestar Galactica. Also, the reason why they are official is because we are to document honest facts about the show, because we've had issues with people posting wild rumors on the Wiki.

Of course, one of Battlestar Wiki's (correctable) downfalls is in information pertaining to the cast and crew of BSG. The "behind the scenes" stuff that a publication like Entertainment Weekly, Rolling Stone or TV Guide would document. Obviously, a different set of criteria for sources will be needed to tackle the biographies of cast and crew, and therefore I definitely encourage discussion of what sources we should use in this regard. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 18:08, 14 July 2006 (CDT)

Ref Tags

Another line tot he <ref> usage....

<ref> tags can be used if you need to explain something that might need further explanation, but it doesn't belong with the main article text.

--Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 09:57, 25 July 2006 (CDT)

Citing Battlestar Galactica: The Resistance

Can we agree that The Resistance (i.e. [[Battlestar Galactica: The Resistance|The Resistance]]) is acceptable? Battlestar Galactica: The Resistance is quite excessively long and the "Battlestar Galactica: " prefix adds nothing. The staff seem to view it as some kind of supernumary episode, anyway; treating it as one seems neater. --CalculatinAvatar^(C-T) 00:35, 7 September 2006 (CDT)

Concur. Shorter is better. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 00:47, 7 September 2006 (CDT)

This is fine. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 06:53, 7 September 2006 (CDT)

As long as we disambig sufficiently from Caprica Resistance or the episode, we're good on that. --Spencerian 10:41, 7 September 2006 (CDT)

Clause on Derived Content

One thing many we veteran contributors here have taken for granted is the allowance for plausible speculation and logical deduction, which I will group into a classification I'll call "Derived Content." I'd like to add a clause the specifically defines what allowable speculation is and how to cite it. Here's my proposed addition.

"Battlestar Wiki is an encyclopedia on works of fiction. By that nature, the characters, technology, events and other items in these works of fiction are not fully explained or defined. Because of this, contributors are allowed to add material that helps in adding intriguing interpretation and explanation into an article's content that is based on logical or actual events, characters, and objects from official sources.

"The first method in adding derived content is the logical, plausible speculation approach. This method fill in the gaps of data more on character or plot direction than cited behavior or technical explanation. When done correctly, plausible speculations add "color" and insight to the article, as well as defining the article's content for readers who may not have realized a significance to the subjects presented in the article.

"Plausible speculation occurs when official sources on the subject are sparse, but substantially important events and results occur in the official sources that logical possibilities can be generated. Plausible speculations are highly fluid and subject to extreme editing as new official information occurs. Plausible explanations also lend themselves best to character behaviors and motivations.

"One significant example of an article that uses a great deal of plausible speculation is the article on Cylon agent speculation and Case Orange. For contributors of Original Series content, plausible speculation is all that can be drawn upon on since the Original Series and its spinoff have long ceased production, and there are very few official resources to consult or research.

"Similar to plausible speculations is the logical deduction approach. The logical deduction differs from plausible speculation in that much more information is available from official content and sources to derive strongly supported article content, despite the fact that the subject matter per se is not discussed in any one source, but over a series of sources. Logical deductions usually lend themselves best to explanations of technology, terminology or procedure, with technology that has been illustrated, although not fully explained.

"The articles on Computers, Galactica (RDM), FTL, DRADIS and Science in the Re-imagined Series are good examples where logical deduction from sources gives greater insight and detail on a topic without outlandish, fanciful and unsourced content.

"The requirement in using either plausible speculation or logical deduction is that all contributors must cite credible sources that support their speculation."

--Comments??? --Spencerian 15:42, 11 September 2006 (CDT)

It looks good to me. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 11:15, 12 September 2006 (CDT)

No problems here... --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 11:29, 12 September 2006 (CDT)

So say we all. --Steelviper 12:28, 13 September 2006 (CDT)

Excellent! Some of this content may fit in with NVOP or Tutorial Topics. --FrankieG 12:40, 13 September 2006 (CDT)

Good deal. I will add this to an appropriate section in the policy. Good idea, FrankieG. We should summarize or cross ref some of all in Standards and Conventions to remind newbies that, unlike Wikipedia, we glean information. --Spencerian 12:28, 14 September 2006 (CDT)

WebCite

I have found the answer to one of our perennial citation problems: WebCite. This free service will archive a web page and allow its retrieval by later readers and researchers. This may help us make Link Rot a thing of the past. Opinions? --Peter Farago 06:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds intriguing for sourced Internet material that could fly away, such as newspaper articles, interviews and the like. The cost seems good, too. --Spencerian 18:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Definitely agree. However, we can always archive the pages ourselves by making PDFs of such pages and storing them in our own repository for later use... Perhaps even on the BW Media wiki. Of course, the only issue that immediately comes to mind is one of copyright... In any event, I'll e-mail the people at WebCite to see whether or not we classify as an organization in their eyes. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Battlestar Pegasus} 18:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, I have not received a reply. This had completely slipped my mind until I was reading this talk page. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Battlestar Pegasus} 18:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

New citation standard

Time to roll the dice, ladies and gentlemen! It's sortkey all over again! :) Seriously, though, I'm all for it, and the best part about this kind of change is the necessity for someone or another to hit basically every article on the wiki, which only results in improvement. See you in the trenches! JubalHarshaw 04:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)