Entertainment
 

The Bionic Wiki:Current eventsedit

From The Bionic Wiki

Current Events is a centralized spot on the wiki where the community can discuss topics that concern the whole of the wiki. Think of it as a talk page for the entire database. If you want to open up discussion about a particular article, please do so on the Talk: page for that article. Don't forget to indent and sign your posts (with ~~~~) to make discussion easier to navigate.

Contents

[edit] User Blogs and New Masthead

Wikia has introduced a blogging feature. It comes as part of a new user page masthead into which you can upload a personalized avatar. Read about them here. At the Bionic Wiki, we understand that an "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is a collective philosophy that has a downside: it can be overwhelming and some might even feel diminished by it. But we've long encouraged users to customize their own pages, to have fun with them, injecting their own brand of individuality. Wikia's new blog feature lends itself to this ideal. What do you think? Why not blog about it?  :Þ As always, if anyone has any problems, let the admins know. — Paul (talk) 10:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WYSIWYG

As some of you may have already discovered, a WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get) editor has been implemented on Wikia. I've long held the belief that to draw in new editors (and when I say editors, I mean newbies, average Joes [no offense Joe!] and people not necessarily technical [like me!]) Wikia needed a "point-and-click" editing tool. The wiki mark-up has always been the speed-bump on the road of article creation. And although the learning curve is not terribly steep, it's still enough to discourage eager newbies (and some regulars) from diving in. Hopefully, that changes with the addition of this new editing tool. Please be vocal about your experience. If you have any problems, leave a comment on my (or any admin's) Talk page. — Paul (talk) 09:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Credit Table

I've been going over some credits stuff since I got a hold of the latter seasons of Six, and it seems clear to me that:

  • A–There are credits not included in the infobox that are nonetheless relevant and of interest to users (Music??).
  • B–Neither the infoboxes, nor the various relevant categories, provide a framework for an editor to quickly assess what is not yet in the database and attack the undone work.

So I've come up with the thought of a giant table, akin to the music credit breakdown on the Joe Harnell page, for listing credits for all episodes of each show. Obviously, this would be it's own kind of pain, and I invite competing ideas. The table would also allow a user at-a-glance to see when a regular contributer to the shows arrived and left over time. If there's interest I could throw something together. The Richard Donner thing could easily be resolved if one could scan down the table's director column and see that either all data is in, or 12 episodes are the only ones unknown; you can see how much an aid a chart could be. Probably be best to separate the shows, since some credits are unique to the show (KJ's "Created for Television by" comes to mind).--Major Sloan 20:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I think a production chart is a great idea. You could even break it down by season and incorporate it into the season pages. In any event, I say have at it. Expanding each episode's info box to include end credits is still on my drawing board. — Paul (talk) 01:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Summary vs. Recap?

Hi - sorry for my long absence - have had a hectic few months. I'm interested in everyones opinion regarding the summary field. The opening paragraph is the basic plot outline, and then directly underneath is the summary. For most pages, the summary seems to be a brief retelling of key elements of the episode (see Fly Jaime and Sister Jaime). For others, it is a lengthy almost scene by scene recap (see Bionic Beauty and Doomsday Is Tomorrow (Part II)). Are there any guidelines here? Do we want detail rich summaries that re-tell an entire episode, or just the cogent points? Do we care either way?

Personally, I know all these episodes backwards as I'm sure most fans do and have no interest in verbose recaps, unless they are of the witty, irreverent kind (see Television Without Pity - which could be a lot of fun by the way - though might upset some people). I'd like to see summaries no more than a couple of paragraphs long. As mentioned I think Fly Jaime and Sister Jaime are examples of a suitable word count.

I don't want to edit anyone's work without concensus on the approach. Also I'd like to contribute to the episode summaries, and some guidelines would be helpful. Thoughts... Warwick 09:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

For my part I agree for my own writing. I did a minor cut down of the absurdly detailed summary for Kill Oscar Part II a few months ago. I'm hesitant to put the knife to them to deeply; I guess I figure there's so much missing from the wiki that putting in the new trumps taking out the old unless it's actually wrong. If I'm doing major work on a page, no part is left untouched, summary included.
I usually put irreverence in my picture captions (eg The Seven Million Dollar Man); a wiki is supposed to be a straightforward resource, not entertainment, but I give myself the captions. ;-)
I would suggest for now that we decide on an ideal, point to episodes that can be used as proper examples for length and detail. Then at least the regular editors will have a star to steer by. My 2¢ --Major Sloan 15:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes agree there's no point fundamentally changing what's there just to make a summary compliant. For the most part, summaries are typically already brief, or missing so there's plenty to be done. But yes, would like to agree on a standard. (and you should allow yourself the captions!)Warwick 23:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
How about a standard 5 paragraph structure? That should take care of the prologue, all the acts, and the epilogue. — Paul (talk) 03:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Switching to the new parser

Hi,

We are currently making preparations for the next wiki software upgrade. While we expect this to have little or no effect on most wikis, it may cause some pages on this wiki to render poorly. To help reduce or eliminate these issues, please see the Central Forums for more details.

Thanks - sannse@Wikia (talk) 10:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Image Gallery

The gallery looks much better with five images to a row. I had wanted to do it, but my wiki markup skills are very basic, so I'm glad to see that you can figure this stuff out. --Karen (talk) 17:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I do like the 5 images in a row for the gallery, though not sure how it will feature on different screen sizes? It looks much better on mine at home, but at work, I have to now scroll horizontally because the monitor is square. So haven't proceeded further. What do you think?Warwick 23:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I have the same problem - on my laptop six images actually fit well, with the margin lining up under the episode box, but at work I have to scroll. I think I still like the five images per row, regardless of needing to scroll. Aesthetically, it will fit more screens, and someday those old screens at work may be updated... hopefully. Karen (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I have noted that on pages with not much content, a gallery will collide with the episode box in a bad way. Is there any way to get these items to respect one another?--Major Sloan 15:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it depends on your browser. Some browsers show an overlap while others create extra white space to avoid it. There are some options:
  • Place a <br clear="all" /> tag above the gallery so there will be a break in content before the new content begins.
  • Make the gallery 3 images wide like this: <gallery perrow=3>
  • Make the thumbnails smaller: <gallery widths="80px" heights="80px">
I see that Joe has already started reducing the number of images per row. You may still experiment if you wish. — Paul (talk) 02:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Episode Page/Image Formating

Is there a settled format for the episode pages? I think my main concern is the set up for the images. While I like the column of pictures, when it is added to a page with the episode box, the text portion is very narrow. Would a gallery of images be a better option or even to have the images dispersed throughout the text?

And for the text box image, a picture of Jaime or a poignant scene from the episode or anything>Karen (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll agree, images on both sides of the article body looks terrible. I think images should be on the right side, starting just beneath the episode box, or as a gallery at the end of the summary. There's a lot of unfinished business regarding the info box template and aesthetics, but yours is an easy question to answer: absolutely the top image should be iconic. Great examples are The Jailing of Jaime, Mirror Image and The Seven Million Dollar Man. Not so great examples are The Deadly Missiles and Return of the Robot Maker. — Paul (talk) 10:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok, we really need a final decision on page format. Obviously, with the nature of Wikipedia, there will be changes made and edits along the way, but there are too many pages on this site for us to have multiple formats or to keep switching back and forth on particular pages. I think there are enough episode pages with a considerable amount of content (and headings) to establish a final format. From previous discussions, I had pulled out a suggested format and started to reformat episode pages (Population: Zero, Canyon of Death, and The Jailing of Jaime). However, some have since been changed (Canyon and Jailing). Can we get a group consensus on this? Otherwise I'm going to feel like I'm just spinning my wheels. What are other opinions on the format of episode pages? Karen (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I see what's happening. You've started implementing the changes as discussed recently over in Joe's talk page under 'Deconstructed.' And Warwick, who probably hasn't read that discussion, has been storming through the wiki making format changes that match-up with most of the other content -- even changing stuff that you just fixed. I say, kudos to both of you for your initiative and enthusiasm! But you're right, Karen, we need to lock down a format so that we're all on the same page. Here's what I proposed:
==Summary==
==Gallery==
==Home Video==
==Novelization==
==Etc. (Any Other Header That Doesn't Analyze The Episode)==
==Deconstructed==
===Quotes===
===Trivia===
===Gaffes===
===Nitpicks===
===Ear to Err===
===Etc.===
As most pages stand now (and as Warwick was using as guide), the only real differences are placement of gallery, the use of the word, 'Deconstructed,' and header size for Deconstructed items:
==Summary==
==Home Video==
==Novelization==
==Etc. (Any Other Header That Doesn't Analyze The Episode)==
==Quotes==
==Trivia==
==Gaffes==
==Nitpicks==
==Ear to Err==
==Etc.==
==Gallery==
Do they both work? Sure. Which do we like best? — Paul (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Personally I prefer the latter. Aside from the fact that I like it better, most of the pages have already evolved to that structure, so less editing. I certainly think the galleries should be either at the top of the page or the end (my choice) of the page because it makes them easier to find. I wasn't sure about the real estate at the top though, would it look crowded on smaller screens with the episode summary panel on the right?
I'm not sure that the "Deconstructed" section is required or adds much to the layout. There's not that much deconstruction going on and the format is a nuance that could be missed by newbies who start editing (e.g. me - who was editing without being across the latest discussions on format). To me deconstruction implies something far more involved in the review of each episode and would be more appropriate if we were going to break down our assessment of each episode scene-by-scene perhaps. Otherwise basically every entry should relate to the episode in some way - even if its simply referring to the release on DVD.
On that, I'm not clear on the purpose of the Home Video section. Was it to identify every official release of the episode on video around the world? Could be quite a long list if every German, Australian, French, Italian, British and Dutch (you get the idea) VHS and DVD release is to be articulated. If it was only to generically state the episode is available on VHS or DVD then couldn't that be indicated in the Seasons pages instead.?
Final question - should sections be added in as stubs or placeholders even without content or should they be left out altogether and inserted only when someone has something to say that relates to those sections? Warwick 23:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Good questions. Re: Deconstructed, it really comes down to æsthetics. Our goal is always to be clean, simple, and coherant -- but with some style! -- and not only with color and image. Instead of "Analysis," we use "Deconstructed" as a style term; inkeeping with the idea of Bionics. And as I said before, anything beyond the primaries (summary, cast, crew, characters, screencaps, availability, connections, etc.) is extra material (in this case, analysis: quotes, trivia, nitpicks, outtakes, statistics, fanisms, etc.). The reason for the header changes is to better differentiate between the ==Primaries== and the ===Extras===.
Galleries: as they are directly related to the summary, I felt that they should display immediately after. But you have a point with regard to smaller screens; they can appear overlapped or crowded (but that's something we can address within Wikia coding). I'm not against putting it at the bottom as a sort of visual bookend with respect to the main infobox image.
You're spot on with the idea of the Home Video section. It is, indeed, an at-a-glance reference for the commercial availability of an episode. I can guarantee that this is a major information point readers will be looking for. I can also guarantee that the list could never be as long as some of those damned quotes. :Þ
As for your last question, Warwick, stubs work when we know that they'll be filled in. We can safely assume that Summary, Quotes, Trivia, Gaffes, and Gallery will be used. Beyond that, we should wait and see. — Paul (talk) 11:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Even though it will take more editing, I prefer the basic format of the first choice. I'd rather go through the process of editting now and have what we want, then to have less editting now and compromise the look or style of this Wiki. And I like the use of the "Deconstructed" heading to separate and distinguish extra material from the summary, with each subsequent heading smaller in size. As for the gallery, I used to feel that they should follow the summary. But it seems to actually break up the flow of the page. After seeing the galleries at the bottom, I feel that it does serve to act as a visual bookend as Paul suggests. Regarding the "Home Video" heading, if it is there to note commercial availability, wouldn't it be the same for each episode from the season? It would seem that should be listed on the Season page. Karen (talk) 09:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
If I'm reading an episode article, I'd rather not have to go somewhere else to find out if I can get it on video. I think most visitors come here to look up specific episodes, anyway. We shouldn't be making relevant, high-interest information harder to find. If volume is a concern, we can limit the info to a country or format list (VHS, Laserdisc, DVD) and make the header itself a link to the season articles. — Paul (talk) 11:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Volume is not a concern for me - my philosophy tends to lean to "the more the merrier" if anything. I see the purpose of including the information on the episode pages. Yet it just seems that it will be repetitive to list episode availability on each page when it is the same for each episode in a season. For that matter, it might just be easier to note: available everywhere except the United States. --Karen (talk) 18:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Have we reached a consensus, still debating, or setting a time limit to decide? Karen (talk) 17:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Season Overview Pages

More formatting questions - I've been experimenting with a two column layout for the Episode List for the Season pages - see The Bionic Woman: Season 2. I like it, however, I have encountered a problem. If insert text after the final </div> entry it works, if I don't it runs into the next section. So two questions - one what do you think of the two column layout and two - does anyone have a solution for this markup problem? Warwick 08:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can't help with the markup issue, but I can give my opinion on the change. :) I like the two columns as opposed to one long column. Would it look better to have each episode listed with an image from that episode (in a gallery maybe?) rather than just the few images on the page now? Or is this just overusing/crowding of images? Karen (talk) 10:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikia's New Style

If you've logged into Wikia recently you've seen the notification about their upcoming site-wide new look (for those of you who haven't logged in, this comment should trigger an email). To read all about the new layout and learn how it will affect The Bionic Wiki, click here. Don't panic, our wiki isn't going to change on any fundamental level, moistly interface and side-bar navigation. And it's fully customizable! If you still have questions after visiting the link, come back here and I'll try to answer them as best I can. — Paul (talk) 13:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

As per the announcement over at Talk:Main Page, the new style kicks in tomorrow, Halloween 2008.--Major Sloan 04:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Time to bring in the 2007 series wiki?

I posted this question to the 2007 BW series wiki a few weeks back but there seems to have been no reply, and except for me updating a few things the wiki hasn't seen much activity. Is it actually connected to this wiki at all, or is it separate? Since Eick has announced the show is cancelled, and NBC hasn't placed it on its 2008-09 schedule, one can safely say it's been cancelled. Is it time to adopt the 2007 BW wiki? It may not have been a success, and it may have been virtually an in-name-only remake, but it's still part of the Bionic family. Thoughts? 23skidoo 01:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

While I don't object to the idea, I can't help but observe the dearth of activity here as well; as a practical concern the workload involved may just sit there unless you want to "knock yourself out", no offense. If Bionic Woman gets integrated here, the challenge will be separating BW from TBW; two entries for Jaime Sommers? How to handle that? I would oppose taking a Rudy Wells approach with 2 actresses for the character; the 2007 Jaime is a different character altogether. Jaime Sommers (2007) could work. While disappointing as a show IMHO, I would be accepting of the inclusion, since it is certainly in the "family," but others may not…Major Sloan 02:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
This wiki is certainly welcome to carry the content over from there. If the community is okay with that, we'll redirect the domain to this website and help increase the Google juice flowing in here. It will also help Google to have more celebrity names for search terms, which again will increase traffic here. One thing I noticed which I was really excited about, was that people were drawing parallels between the two shows and linking back and forth to each wiki. I didn't expect to see that given the differences in the shows, but it served as an example of its similarities that I didn't expect to see. —Scott (talk) 02:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Some replies. To Major Sloan, I'm not sure that there's any real "workload" involved at all. In fact, it's all been done. The only work would be to make sure wikilinks are updated, but there can't be that many articles involved here (famous last words?), and there are only 90 articles on the BW Wiki. To Scott: one concern I have is I wouldn't want to see credit not being given where it's due: could the articles be imported here while preserving edit histories and talk pages? Fortunately registrations are kept across the board. As far as keeping the distinction between the two series, I think the best way is to just do what Wikipedia does (in a sense) and just refer to Bionic Woman (2007 series) or Bionic Woman 2007 even. 23skidoo 04:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to put in my two-cents on this despite my M.I.A. status. I have reservations about merging the two wikis. Especially since there are 90 articles. I think I'd be more comfortable with the new BW being incorporated if it was done so in a manner that kept it compact. Maybe by not having an individual page per episode or character... I don't know if that much space needs to be dedicated to it.
Paul - I'll be returning very soon. I haven't completely disappeared. I've been lurking and will have some things to talk to you about when I do return.17:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The positives Scott describes notwithstanding, I'm still uncertain that it belongs here. The two universes are mutually exclusive. This was the main reason it's founder and I ultimately decided against inclusion in the first place; it deserved its own wiki. I think it still does, irrespective of its success (or failure). Personally, I liked the show. It was not "my" Bionic Woman and Michelle was not "my" Jaime Sommers. It was something entirely new, and I liked it for what it was, and was sad to see it go because it was getting better. I digress. I was happy with our Bionic Woman (2007) and Jaime Sommers (2007) entries; they provided succinct info on the show and character and offered links to the new wiki (sadly, they were deleted in favor of direct linkage). Incidentally, if we do end up absorbing it, I would favor a full page for page integration rather than compact. But again, right now, I'm still unconvinced that the move is necessary. — Paul (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I guess it depends on the desired scope of this Wiki. If it's intended to be stricly about the two-show franchise, then BW2007 wouldn't belong, so I'd have to ask if articles on Kevin Smith's Six Million Dollar Man screenplay, The God Machine and Buck Rogers: A Life in the Future that I was planning to write one of these days would also fit. (The latter two for those who don't know are Caidin novels, the first being an early reference to bionics published a few years before Cyborg and the latter being a later book that included in-joke references to Steve and Jaime; seeing they are both by Caidin I figure they would be justifiable). The other concern I have is whether the 2007 BW Wiki will wither and die if left by itself. Does "Wikia" delete wikis that aren't used that often? I don't know how that works. Similarly I don't know if anyone is actually paying a fee to keep the wiki up; if that is being done, then perhaps it might make more sense to bring it over. I just feel the remake is still a major part of the history of the franchise because it's the first -- and in all likelihood, only -- occasion in which such a reimagining has been attempted. And I think we're probably all in agreement that with all its faults, at least it wasn't a comedy starring Jim Carrey! 23skidoo 20:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Just a personal opinion, but I don't think it has any business being integrated into this site. It's obvious by now that David Eick and NBC merely wanted to capitalize on the show's iconic name. They borrowed "Bionic Woman" and "Jaime Sommers," then dispensed with everything else that made it memorable. Convinced of their own superiority, they openly sneered at Lindsay's show, dismissing it as "campy" and "juvenile." Showing no class, Miguel Ferrer publicly mocked Richard Anderson. In short, they do not deserve the honor of sharing a website dedicated to two shows that they held in contempt. There's also the practical matter of doing searches on this site for Lindsay's show but turning up "BW 2007" material instead. Who needs the confusion?--Valor 23:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bionic Woman cancelled

Although NBC STILL hasn't made an announcement, David Eick himself has confirmed that the series has been cancelled.[1] That sounds pretty official to me. I stated this same question over at its Wiki: it doesn't really make sense to keep a separate wiki for a series that ran for only 8 episodes. I wonder if it shouldn't now be combined with the main wiki? 23skidoo 03:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vintage promo on YouTube

Since YouTube links as we've discussed are rather transient, there's no really applicable place to put this: someone has posted a really cool vintage ABC promo from the first season of SMDM here. Pretty neat. Here's an idea for Paul & Co. -- maybe we could create a noticeboard for things like this -- uploaded clips and the like which might not last long, but are still of interest to the fans. 23skidoo 03:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

If you go to the "Nuclear Alert" page, you'll find that I already provided a link to that promo (which I stashed at Google for fear that YouTube might delete it.) If you want to redirect the link to YouTube, no problem.--Valor 04:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

  • No need. If you already have one linked, that's good. I thought the promo was just a general series promo, and not one for a specific episode. 23skidoo 17:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2007 Bionic Woman series

Just as an FYI, I've been posting some updates to the Bionic Woman 2007 sister wiki. At last report, while some media (including the LA Times) are saying BW has been cancelled, officially NBC has not made any announcement, even at their series pick-up announcements today, although they can wait till May before pulling the plug (or otherwise). According to TV Guide (and quoted in the Wikipedia article on the series), NBC-Universal said it was committed to at least producing the remaining 4 or 5 episodes of the show, and the upcoming DVD is labelled "Volume 1", so it's still anybody's guess if Michelle Ryan will keep a-running. 23skidoo 04:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Just to update the above, because the SyFy Portal reported a rumor that BW had been cancelled, a lot of sites (such as Trekweb, etc.) are reporting the cancellation as fact even though nothing has been announced by NBC or anyone else. It's all speculation. I'm actually involved in a war of words over this at the Wikipedia article by someone who thinks the rumor should be reported as fact because it's a foregone conclusion. Well, it was a foregone conclusion that the original Bionic Woman was dead after its first two seasons as well, but the unepxected happened and it came back. Ditto for the more recent example of Jericho. So my hopes are still high, though I won't be surprised to see an official announcement that it's gone. The show was getting better, but most viewers gave up on it after the pilot and those remaining pretty much just hung around because Starbuck from Battlestar Galactica was playing a baddie. This seems to be a bad year for female cyborgs - the new Terminator series is also struggling even though it seems to be more widely liked. 23skidoo 17:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] YouTube links

I think the way this Wiki handles YouTube links needs to be overhauled. While I'm glad there aren't the same restrictions on them as Wikipedia has, I'm still finding links to videos that have been removed. The problem with YouTube is that videos can be removed by studios claiming copyright foul, by individual users, etc. I don't know if there's an easy answer, but if you check the References page, for example, there are links I've had to delete because they don't go anywhere anymore. Folks like FOX TV have people who probably do nothing but surf the net and watch YT for clips that violate copyright, so any such links have to be considered short-lived. Additional: I just checked and virtually all the YouTube and MP3-sharing links on that page are dead. Maybe we should just say to heck with them. 23skidoo 18:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This is why I stash all of my videos at Google and mark them "private." Unlike YouTube, there are less opportunities for someone at Universal to spot them and request their removal. What I really need is a tutorial on how to embed them here.--Valor 18:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I personally removed one of these broken links the other day, Jaime singing "Feelings" from Bionic Beauty. I've wanted a couple of times to post some vid, but I refuse to use YouTube for the reasons mentioned above. I know .ogg audio is useable here, and I've posted some animated gifs, but QuickTime or mpeg would be invaluable. There is no how-to for media beyond pics and .ogg, though I suspect the ogg instructions would work for other types. More importantly, there is no policy statement beyond the anemic 150kb upload warning.
As a reference, a wiki is squarely in fair use territory (though the DMCA complicates the issue), so using video clips certainly is legitimate in principle; the reality is, however, that Universal can pretty much cough and get clips taken down. Will editors show restraint, so that no problem arises? A set policy on uploads would go some distance in establishing such restraint. Are their technical hurdles preventing some media types from being used? Taking a step back and answer some of these questions will help in the long haul, methinks--Major Sloan 23:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Just promise me that if such policies are created that they aren't as draconian as those currently crippling (and in my opinion outright ruining) Wikipedia. I can understand the need to set a policy with regards to video content, but let's try and stay away from restricting images if we possibly can. 23skidoo 04:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
There's an old discussion around here somewhere concerning YouTube link viability. The basic gist was that having too many was only going to cause us headaches when the vids get taken down -- which usually happens. My own fanvids have dodged the bullet but it's only a matter of time. At any rate, I think all YouTube videos should be listed in article References rather than embedded. It's neater and when YouTube ultimately kills it, there's no embarrassing dead video box. At any rate, all other multimedia links should be listed under article Reference sections with proper descrip. Links that take us out of the Wiki are inappropriate for inline. — Paul (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Individual comic issue articles?

I have just added several links to Comics.org and their Grand Comics Database to the three articles on the Charlton comics. Not only do they have a near-complete collection of Charlton cover scans for the SMDM and BW comic and SMDM magazine (save for issue 7 of SMDM magazine - anyone out there have that one so Comics.org can have a complete set?), but they also have, in many cases, individual indexing for each issue. I wonder if information on this site, coupled with our own knowledge and collections, might form the basis for a series of individual articles on each issue? This is an example of something this Wiki can do that Wikipedia would never allow! Now having said all that all my magazines and comics are packed away in boxes, so I might not be much of a contributor except for information I recall from my own memory, but I think this would be a cool addition. Thoughts? (PS. Props to Paul for uploading the Bionix preview scans. That's the first I've ever seen of them -- Steve and Jaime look like escapees from The Fantastic Four!) 23skidoo 19:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea. As the Charltons are self contained stories, we can treat each issue the same as we treat episodes; synopses, select images, characters, etc. — Paul (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps as a lead-up to this, I have added content information for each issue to the main article. This can be linked to a full-length article later. I'll do something similar for Bionic Woman and the SMDM magazine later. I'm having to get this info online as I do not presently have access to any of my old comics. Some of this I'm doing by memory. Just as a related question, can anyone confirm the existence of a 7th issue of the magazine? It's listed in the Overstreet Comic Book Price Guide, and Comics.org lists it, but unlike the other issues I haven't been able to find any cover art or even one for sale anywhere. 23skidoo 06:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I've completed the "issue detail" sections for the two comic books and the magazine taking info from my own collection and websites. I also went ahead and added the covers, too - though there are a couple missing for the magazine. 23skidoo 19:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Parodies and spoofs

I've just created an article for National Lampoon's TV: The Movie which includes a SMDM spoof featuring Lee Majors and even Oliver Nelson's theme music! I have created a Category: Parodies and placed it under the SMDM films category, but on second thought I think the category should stand on its own, as I can see potential for us to add other articles about SMDM/BW parodies, including Mad Magazine spoofs, the AOL commercials that used the SMDM opening credits, and so on. Thoughts? 23skidoo 20:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Alex! You can add it to the References article (if it's not already there). We'll be restructuring that article soon but for now, you can park it there. — Paul (talk) 23:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll add it when I have a moment. I think it's still fair to have a separate article, since the movie is referenced in the Lee Majors article and does have several SMDM elements to it. Similarly, I think it's justified having the Behind the Camera: The Unauthorized Story of 'Charlie's Angels' TVM along with articles on Ben Browder and John DeSantis because it does have a rather unique place in the scheme of things. 23skidoo 23:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
These articles have been removed and rolled into the References article. Neither Browder nor Santis appeared in either Bionic show, which is what gets an actor an article on the wiki here, and the docudrama itself deserves mention, which it retains. I've gone ahead and made the old article into a redirect so it will degrade gracefully--Major Sloan 22:55, January 11, 2010 (UTC)

[edit] New articles

I've created some stubs for the various authors who contributed novelizations (no more Mike Jahn redlinks!). There's not much information, but it's a start. I'm also going to start articles on some of the SMDM/BW activity books. I still have a few of the puzzle books - Bionic Eye Rebus Puzzles and such. Unfortunately I do not have a working scanner so I cannot contribute cover images, but hopefully someone else has them and can scan them when I get around to creating the articles. I've also got ... somewhere ... my copies of the BW Action Adventure Activity Book and the SMDM coloring book which is basically an adaptation of Wine, Women and War! I'll add these too when I have time. 23skidoo 22:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DVD announced for new BW series

Just so folks are aware, Universal has announced it will be releasing the first 8 episodes of the new Bionic Woman as a "Volume 1" set in March. I have posted details (including link) to the "Series News" section of the lead Bionic Woman Wiki page for anyone who is interested. 23skidoo 13:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Current Events Archives

Retrieved from "http://bionic.wikia.com/wiki/The_Bionic_Wiki:Current_events"