Talk:Battlestar Galactica/Archive 1

This archive includes threads from Talk:Battlestar Galactica, Connecticut from the page's creation until December 31st, 2010.

Archive 1

Movie vs. TV series

Should there be a split between movie and series. now it's unclear what the difference is between the movie and series. (becauae of the movie box)

I think that there should be a split. There is enough information on each to make an article. However, rather than restate the plot of the movie, the series should reference the movie article and state what is different. The movie article should contain stricly information about the movie. The television series should contain much of the information that is outside of the scope of what is actually portrayed, background and references. If no one objects by Saturday, then I'll make this change. If any objections, then we can work them out. Val42 02:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Requested Move

Because the movie is not clearly the primary subject of this article name. 132.205.46.167 00:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Votes

• RENAME I am the nominator 132.205.46.167 00:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Move and create a DAB at this article space. Vegaswikian 06:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. This page covers Galactica as a whole not just the original series. We also already have a DAB that is linked from the very top of the page. AlistairMcMillan 14:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

• This page may mention other BGs, but this is specifically a BG film page. Move it, and we can make a new page about all BG. As it's written this is a specific BG film page. 132.205.45.148 20:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Request not fulfilled due to lack of consensus. Rob Church ^Talk 22:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Requested move 2: the reimagining

Mokwella thinks we need to discuss this again, one month later.

Reimagined Version ratings on Network television

Although, Ron Moore, Bonnie Hammers, and Universal Studios claim the series to be a success when the edited mini-series and a year later an episode was shown on NBC-TV network. Both times they sank to the bottom of the Neilsen ratings on the week they aired. As one person noted these did far worst than the original 1978 version of Galactica and worst than the original Star Trek in the 1960s. Which actually ask the question is this "Ron Moore's version as good as the producers and owners say it is?"

Votes

• RENAME I am renominating this one User:mokwella 21:44 3 December 2005 (UTC). The main reason is that there are about five different series that someone may be attempting to reach when they type in the phrase 'Battlestar Galactica' including the reimagined mini-series, the 1980 series, the 1978 film, the 1978-1979 ABC series and the reimagined series currently running on Sci-Fi. Alternatively, this article could be rewritten to specifically reference all these aspects, and the film given a page of its own. Mokwella 03:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Just move the content that is specific to the film to another page. Only the cast list and synopsis are specific to the movie. AlistairMcMillan 04:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Which is in effect what the rename would do. When the DAB replaced the film article, a general plot overview could be included on the dab page. Vegaswikian 23:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I could only see a reason for Battlestar Galactica to be a disambiguation page if the movie and the series had nothing to do with each other besides accidentally sharing the name; since they belong together, this page should be about common things and Battlestar Galactica in general, with specific film details put into an extra article about the film. Kusma (talk) 05:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Rename, there can be a new article on the Battlestar Galactica universe in this place instead of being about the film. 132.205.45.148 19:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Rename as before. Vegaswikian 07:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Rename and let Battlestar Galactica become a disambiguation page. Val42 03:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

A lot of work need to be done on this topic. Final Fantasy is more organized. Yu-Gi-Oh! has a directory too. I'm basing this on the box at the bottom of both entries. Hackwrench 18:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The thing everyone needs to keep in mind that isn't being brought up here is that the movie doesn't have the mindshare for the phrase "Battlestar Galactica" Hackwrench 18:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Can we conclude that consensus has been reached to (1) move the Battlestar Galactica page to Battlestar Galactica (film) and (2) create a new page that captures all of the iterations of the Battlestar Galactica series in one introductory page and that also references the disambiguation page at the top? Mokwella 05:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• For concensus having been reached.  ;-) Val42 05:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, given the comments above, I believe consenus has been reached, provided there be something more than a disambiguation page, and that the work done on the film page be preserved. I've begun the work. Please edit away. I have tried to give the film prominence in the new main page, and moved the film page without modification to Battlestar Galactica (film). I am currently working on making sure the links are corrected and changed on referring pages.Mokwella 18:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Peace?

"The Colonies have long been at peace with a cybernetic race known as the Cylons," I haven't seen the new series, but I'm sure that the premise of the original series was that the Colonies had just recently made "peace" with the Cylons, after having long been at war with them. I'm obviously not a big fan, and I'm not sure what I'm even doing here, :-) so if this comment is totally stupid please feel free to ignore and delete it. KarlBunker 18:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

In the original novel, the Cylons were the ultimate result of a reptilian race using cyborg technology on themselves. The movie and TV series changed the Cylons to be the robotic creations of the reptilian race who turned on their creators, though Imperious Leader appears to be an organic being, possibly a cyborg. He's most likely the only remnant of the original plan to have the series follow the cyborg lizard plot of the novel. Approximately 1,000 Yahren (years) prior to the events of the series, the humans thwarted the Cylon invasion of the Hasari's (no other info on the Hasari exists as canon) homeworld. That set off the 1,000 Yahren War, the end of which is depicted in the original movie.

The new series dumps all that out the airlock and retreads the oldest plot in SciFi, going back to Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein", man's creation turning on its creator. It also shortens the war with the Cylons to around 50 years, followed by a truce that lasts for 20 years, during which the Cylons are never heard from- in spite of the establishment of a space station to which a Human and Cylon envoy are supposed to meet annually. the new series opens with the Cylons finally showing up at the station with a pair of robots (possibly with organic brains) and the fully organic gynoid that is later revealed to be Number 6.

Cain and Abel

A recent edit by DrZarkov to the religious and mythological reference section, specifically the list item regarding Admiral Cain of the Pegasus: Interestingly enough, there is a Pegasus bridge officer with the surname Abel, who was still alive at the end of the second season. I have no memory of this within the re-imagined show. Is this part of the original show? if so, that should be stated. If not, is it a piece of trivia about the re-imagined show that I just don't remember? Either way, I would like an accuracy check on this information. Thanks! Abhorsen327 12:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The character is Ensign Abel Thorton, who appeared in The Captain's Hand. Here are a couple of references [1] , [2] , [3] . Unfortunately I haven't come across an official site that lists the name of the guest stars, and I don't think he was in the ending credits. (DrZarkov 23:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC))

discrepancy

the photo, Galacticacrew.jpg, cannot be correct. that number 6, in baltar's head, is not part of the crew. i expect this to be corrected within a timely manner. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.62.131.99 (talk • contribs) .

Right, well, if you carefully read the caption you'll notice that it says nothing about No6 being a member of the crew. The filename is ultimately irrelevant, even if it is incorrect. (For that matter Baltar and the President are not crew either.) - BalthCat 15:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Title with colon

I'm restoring the line about the title sometimes being formatted with a colon, and since I don't want to get into a revert war, I'm justifying it here first. Canon is irrelevant. This is an encyclopedia article, and since the title with colon is sometimes seen (e.g. [4]), the statement belongs on the page. Since it seems out of place at the bottom of the intro where it was, I moved it up to the first paragraph, where it seems more appropriate. -- Fru1tbat 14:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Just because some independent vendor decides to randomly insert punctuation into a show's title doesn't mean it's relevant in an encyclopedic sense. Lots of incorrect spellings and ways of punctuating things are "seen" all over the world, but that doesn't make those errors part of any standard definition. For example, this site ([5]), along with many other sources, incorrectly spells "Butt-head" (as in, Beavis and -) as one word, "Butthead." Nobody can get "*NSYNC" right, with errors ranging from "In Sync" to "En Sync" to "N'Sync" to "'N Sync" to to " 'N sync" to " N Sync." Those errors are far more common than "Battlestar: Galactica," but that still doesn't make them relevant to the definition of the term. Unless there's some hugely famous error that the majority of the population makes when pronouncing or spelling a word/phrase, it's not important enough to include in the first paragraph of an encyclopedia article. "Battlestar: Galactica" is a rare enough mistake that most people wouldn't think of it UNLESS someone actively suggested it to them in a situation like this. So let's not go there. And canon is exactly what is relevant when we're trying to objectively define something that's someone else's creation. The mistakes of others are not directly related to the definition of the term itself, and by defining a term, we necessarily bind ourselves to the terms under which the creator names it. The article for "nuclear" shouldn't begin by stating that many people incorrectly pronounce the word "nuke - yoo - lar," it should start off by saying what the word means, point blank. Nobody wants a revert war, but the colon is just plain irrelevant, and until there's an army of people defending its presence with something better than "well, THIS place spells it that way," ... it's out of here. Caprica 20:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Fine then, be fair across the board though, pull the link for Battlestar Wiki as well, They are neither a recognized authority nor a stable wiki, which is a violation of the rules you are using as well.---Shrike6 20:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Battlestar WikiProject?

Would anyone be interested in trying to get one started?--Kross^Talk 14:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Battlestar Galactica ?

Inaccurate Premise Information

The section at the head of this article, independent of the sections specific to the two versions of the franchise, states that all versions share a general premise, then proceeds to give information specific to the 1978 version of Battlestar Galactica only, without noting it as such. Surely this should be cut down to a more generalized version? 124.168.138.220 09:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

End?

The end of the show has NOT been confirmed. http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=2&id=41457&type=0 59.167.37.97 22:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

greenlit is a word? Why not greenlighted?

I had thought that a misprint, and tried to change it to greenlighted, but after checking, greenlit is listed as a word in another entry. So I changed it back to greenlit. Sorry about that.

It sounds rather... does that sound right to anyone? The project is greenlit instead of greenlighted? Getting a green light, as in traffic signals, is differant than being lit up by a green light. So shouldn't it just be greenlighted? Dream Focus 23:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it sounds awful. I believe "lit" is the past tense of "to light" as in "I lit a candle." The verb "to light" and the noun "light" (as in the light is green) are mere homophones. The past tense of the verb is not the past tense of the noun, which of course is nonsensical (nouns don't have tenses). The fact that another article writer got it wrong doesn't make it correct. PLEASE feel free to fix it. Again. Kjdamrau 06:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)kdamrau

This isn't scientific, of course, but a quick Google site search of Variety.com got 3750 hits for "greenlit" and only 187 for "greenlighted". The Wikipedia article greenlight mentions both, listing "greenlit" first, but unfortunately has no references. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Man

Although I don't necessarily agree with the writer of this section, I couldn't leave it as it was. I have cleaned it up so that it somewhat resembles standard English, e.g.: Capitalized "dr."; changed profitt to prophet; corrected subject/verb agreement. Again, I think it is flawed, but at least it is now readable and wrong. Kjdamrau 06:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)kjdamrau

Cylon

I can't say how much I appreciate somebody taking the time to write this. That said, the paragraph, quoted below, has some problems.

1) There are no less than ten spelling, capitalization or punctuation errors. The Cylons are monotheistic in beliveing in one god, this god however is not the creator. The Cylons look upon themselves as the children of mankind and see their creator as essential evil and wants to destroy mankind. Thus the genocide in the beginning of the Miniseries 2003. This resembles Gnostic or dualistic faith with the view of the material creation and the creatore as evil (Demiurg) and true salvation comes from a timeless God beyond the creature (personified in Christ in Christian-gnostic belief). It also resembles the Gnostic idea of that Gods true apparation is concealed from man and not relevated in any scriptures and can only be perceived by a chosen few in a spiritual way - as dr. Baltar percieves the will of the one god by Cylon nr. 6 in his mind. But both man and Cylon seems to be living by divine (Judeo-Christian) commandments such as procreation, life is sacred and God is love.

2) The Cylons see their creators as "essential evil?"

3) "salvation comes from a timeless God beyond the creature" Really?

4) "The Cylons ... wants to destroy mankind."

4) The other problem - and I think this is a big one - is that even with the spelling corrected, even with good guesses as to what words the author really meant, even if the subjects and verbs were made to agree, I can't make heads or tails of this paragraph. That is the reason that I won't undertake the cleanup myself; I have NO idea what this is trying to say. Any help appreciated. Kjdamrau 06:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)kjdamrau

New noticeboard

A new noticeboard, Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard, has been created. - Peregrine Fisher 18:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This noticeboard has been deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard. Please disregard the above post. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

1979 People's Choice Award?

I've been searching for a while now, and can find only one reference to the 1979 show's alleged People's Choice Award win. Unfortunately the source is an iffy blog[6]. The People's Choice Awards are unfortunately not catalogued on their own website. As far as I can tell, it only keeps information from the previous year under its "past winner's" section. Should we just strike the statement and move on? CzechOut 09:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Fansites

Are these amateur fansites of value on this page?

• Colonial Fleets
• The Cylon Alliance
• Battstar Galactica Club
• Colonial Fan Force
• Battlestar Fan Films

- BalthCat 19:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Not really, unless you're looking to document the huge chip on the shoulders of some original series fans who continue to hate the new series. Colonial Fleets has gone so far as to make discussion of the new series at all a bannable offense. Colonial Fan Force *might* be worth mentioning as a movement to bring forth a continuation series. And I say *might* in that Ron Moore supposedly contributed to it. Plus when you start adding links to these guys sites, you're basically advertising them. (And given their subject matter, there may be POV issues)--Arkcana 04:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree.

Essentially the argument that Arkcana gives is that these sites should not be included because the majority of the members at these sites do not like the new series. While it is true that these sites generally do not portray the new show in a favorable light, excluding them for this reason would be a violation of the stated goal of issue neutrality.

Colonial Fleets banned discussion of the new show because it resulted in arguments and flame wars between fans of the old and new show. The owner of Colonial Fleets, an employee of Zoic Studios who worked on the SPFX for the new show, made this decision so the site could focus on its stated purpose, which was artwork. However while discussion of the new show has been banned, artwork based on the new show is still allowed.

Arkcana also betrays her non-neutrality position by stating that Colonial Fan Force might be included, but only because Ronald D. Moore might have had some involvement with it. Essentially saying that only sites with involvement in the new series should be allowed, which is again, a violation of the stated goal of issue neutrality.

The Battlestar Fan Films site is nothing more than a site showcasing new original fan films and shorts based on the original series. No commentary either good or bad regarding the new show is presented at all.

Overall these sites are of tremendous value for anyone seeking information about the old series, and an alternative viewpoint on the new series. They contain massive amounts of information regarding Battlestar Galactica including articles, fan artwork, fan fiction, interviews, photographs, blueprints, and discussion.

If you are going to argue that linking to these sites is merely advertising them, then the exact same neutral standard should also be held for Battlestar Galactica Hub, BattlestarGalactica.com, and Sci Fi Channel's Battlestar Galactica page, which should then be likewise removed.

)--Jjrakman 16:28, 03 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a links farm, please see WP:EL... which all those sites fail. Matthew 21:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I read the article on External Links which you referenced, but it seems to run counter to your position.

I would like to ask two questions:

1) Specifically which rules do these sites violate? 2) Why does Battlestar Galactica Hub, BattlestarGalactica.com, and Sci Fi Channel's Battlestar Galactica page, not violate the exact same rules which the others violate?

)--Jjrakman 17:03, 03 June 2007 (UTC)

I personally think some of pages on these sites are relevant to this page. Cylon.org has some of the best pages on the web about the original BSG and some of the revivals. http://www.cylon.org/bsg/1978-intro-01.html and BSGClub's encyclopedia provides useful information. Have you read the article on the original Battlestar there? http://www.battlestargalacticaclub.com/modules.php?name=Content&file=viewarticle&id=30 I dont see the violation to the rules of either one these sites. --Shrike6 17:38, 03 June 2007 (UTC)

They're links to personal websites, which are generally to be avoided, unless written by a recognized authority. That's #11 on the list of guidelines for links normally to be avoided. The list of external links on the page now is fine. Wikipedia is not a directory, and a comprehensive list of sites on this subject isn't warranted anyway. Rray 08:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I can see why a comprehensive list of sites isn't warranted, which is why I only wanted to add 5. However one would think that if this page was maintained for the purposes of giving the reader more information, as opposed to say, promoting an agenda, one would want these sites on the list, as they contain vastly more information about this show than any of the sites currently listed on this page.

However, regarding rule #11, if what you say is true, then how does Battlestar Galactica Hub, BattlestarGalactica.com not violate the exact same rule?

Also you may want to delete Sci Fi Channel's Classic BSG website, as they no longer maintain it, and the link is thus broken.

Jjrakman 20:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't have an agenda other than making the article better. Adding links to 5 non-authoritative fansites would make the article worse, not better.

Regarding Richard Hatch's site, it's a website written by a known authority. He starred in the original series, he has a recurring role in the remake, and he's written several Battlestar Galactica novels.

The criteria for including a link isn't the volume of information on the website in question. It's the quality and authority of the site. Anonymous fansites provide little value to a Wikipedia user. Anyone can create a website that contains a lot of words; that doesn't automatically warrant a link.

Also, you should feel free to delete a broken link yourself. Being helpful is encouraged, and everyone agrees that broken links serve no one. Rray 00:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response.

I disagree. I think not including these links makes the article far worse. That is, if the purpose of the article is to provide information to the reader, then you will find far more information, higher quality information, and more authoritative information, than at most of the sites currently listed on this page.

I can see your point in regards to non-authoritative fansites, and agree that the quality and authority of the site should be the cirteria for including the link. Which is exactly why your position seems to be counter intuitive.

I would have to argue that certainly ColonialFleets.com is far more authoritative than anything else currently listed on this page with the possible sole exception of Richard Hatch's site.

Colonial Fleets is owned and run by an employee of Zoic Studios, the studio who worked on the SPFX for the new series, and the owner of Colonial Fleets himself worked on the SPFX of this show.

The owners of Cylon.org have ongoing relationships with many of the principle cast and crew from the original series and Tom DeSanto, and thus have interviews and chats with them on a semi-regular basis. Not sure you can get much more authoritative than that.

Certainly this would qualify these sites as being more authoritative than either imdb sites, or the Galactica Hub, whose authority I would have to question according to the standards you cite.

Is there a higher authority that I may address this matter to?

Jjrakman 10:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No, there isn't a higher authority. Decision making around here is made based on consensus. You make a good case for including the 2 sites you discussed. Why don't you re-add them? Rray 12:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, JJ. Now, if I may, I am one of the owners of The Cylon Alliance (www.cylon.org). What Jjrakman states about our site is accurate; what the other comments appear to refer to are the various bboards that discuss Battlestar Galactica. Our own board membership is also heavy on the "original" side of the discussion, but the main part of our site is devoted to the preservation of classic science fiction. In our section on Battlestar Galactica, we have a great deal of information from sources within the production, published articles from the period, interviews then and more recent, and we have some material exclusive to The Cylon Alliance such as interviews with Tom DeSanto, Ron Moore, Richard Hatch and others. Our articles are factual, as accurate as we can make them, and any editorial or review comments are clearly delineated. A great many people worked very hard to make this section as comprehensive and authoritative as possible.

You don't need to link to our discussions, which are, of course, wholly subjective. However, there is as much or more factual information about Battlestar Galactica on our pages than just about any other BSG-related site, and to omit The Cylon Alliance pages from the links section is to deny a strong and authoritative resource to your readers. Dawg57 04:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

We already link to Battlestar Wiki, which links to fan sites... that alone is good enough. Wikipedia is not a links database, there is no "this site is superb, it deserves a link". As it stands those fan sites presented are not superb and don't offer much that Wikipedia can't offer or the Battlestar Wiki can't offer. Our mission is not to drive readers away. Matthew 13:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't see the link to Battlestar Wiki, though I am familiar to the site, and it is immensely inferior when compared to the information given at the other sites I suggest, at least in regards to the Original Series. And I do not see Wiki containining links to any of the sites I suggested either.

You keep saying that Wikipedia is not a links database, but I have yet to see one single person make the assertion that Wikipedia is a links database. Surely, 5 links do not consitute an entire database.

I am afraid that you are wrong, at least in regards to the sites being superb in the area of the information they present. This Wikipedia article in comparison to the information those sites reads as though the author(s) are utterly uneducated in regards to the subject matter they purport to cover. This article is woefully inadequate, as is evidenced by what appears on it.

I fully understand that your mission is not to drive readers away, which is exactly why your position on the matter makes no logical sense whatsoever. Could you please explain to me the process by which a reader will see the sites I suggest, then think to themselves, "gee, better not read this article," and then leave?

It seems to me that your position is doing your readers a great disservice by eliminating the premiere sources of information regarding this show, and depriving them of this information. In fact questions raised on this discussion page can be answered by looking at articles found, not on the sites you have here, but only on the sites that I suggested.

When I want info regarding Battlestar Galactica, I go to the sites I listed first, always. The sites you mention, and this site itself, pale in comparison.

)--Jjrakman 10:54, 06 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge suggestion for "Religious and mythological references" section

I've suggested a merge for this section because reading it, it all seems to be solely relevant to the current series on an article that is supposed to cover the whole franchise. That being said, even if it did cover the whole franchise, wouldn't it be better placed in a separate article? It really doesn't seem any more relevant to this particular article than numerous other aspects of the show(s).--Thetriangleguy 13:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Just spotted that there's already a section on the 2004 series article about this anyway so I've changed the "merge-to" tag to reflect this--Thetriangleguy 14:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I've changed this merge suggestion to a split section suggestion since someone added something about the '78 series. I still think this section is very much out of place in this article because, as I said above, it is simply no more relevant to the page than any number of different aspects of both versions of the programme--Thetriangleguy 17:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Since there were no objections I carried out that split of the section.--Thetriangleguy 18:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Religious and mythological references

This section doesn't have any outside references to support it's claims. The parallels to LDS beliefs in particular should be backed up by citations. CovenantD 06:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

In addition to that... Why did anyone add "Pagan"? I'm still unclear on the use of this word. While neo-Paganism may be referred to this way, Galactica hardly refers to the gods in this way. I mean, Hinduism is not strictly monotheistic, but you don't call Hindu gods "Pagan". They're Hindu. Greek gods should be referred to as either ancient Greek gods (or classical, etc) in this context. Seems silly (and agenda-pushing) to do things otherwise. -- Hidoshi 05:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I checked out the dictionary definitions for pagan and heathen (because it is related). They both have been generalized to mean the same thing today, so the usage you mention is correct by current usage. However, the original definitions were akin to "Pagan: a follower of the Roman/Greek gods," and "Heathen: a follower of the Norse gods." By these definitions, you are correct and something else should be used. Val42 16:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so it's been two months without any citations being provided, so I'm adjusting the article accordingly. CovenantD 23:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

There are still a few mentions of the parallels to Mormonism out there on wikipedia. Perhaps someone with more knowledge of this subject should make a Battlestar Gallactica/LDS Parallels article? --Cjs56 21:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You can actually find numerous articles, both recently written, and also written at the time scanned in from magazines, regarding the spirituality and LDS parallels at the following sites:

• Colonial Fleets
• The Cylon Alliance
• Battstar Galactica Club

Jjrakman 20:54, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This has become a problem once again. SharkD 14:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

What the frak?

The word 'frak' originated from Battlestar Galactica, didn't it? Surely there should be some mention of this in the article – a Trivia section, perhaps? SaintedLegion 16:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think it did. I've seen the word used in other works of science fiction, notably in the genres of space opera and cyberpunk. —Lowellian (reply) 04:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Theblacksuperman 05:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC) Frak, used in "Experiment on Terra" as Starbuck is sliding off his Viper, when some enemies come after him. Near the end I think. But yes, deffintalty used in the origional series. It's the episode that the Ship of Light takes Apollo and sends him to Terra to save the planet from the Eastern Alliance. Theblacksuperman 05:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Theblacksuperman 05:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is Tektronix, Inc so prominent in the article?

Is there some reason that Tektronix, Inc. needs to be the focus of an entire paragraph (one of three) in the main body of the article on the 1978 series? It seems to me that the model numbers of osciliscopes used as props belong, if anywhere, in the trivia section. In my opinion the photo better illustrates the bizzaire usage of egyptian imagery in the costumes and props on the show. That might be a more stimulating and fruitful avenue of investigation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.173.83.220 (talk) 05:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC).--Crestodina 00:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The company supplied almost two million dollars worth of equipment for the show, making Battlestar Galactica one of, if not the first, TV shows to use real computer and other electronic equipment rather than mocked up panels of blinking lights and phony reel to reel tape drives to depict "computers". The computer graphics displays were the real thing instead of hand-drawn animation.

Unclear

"The Cylons are monotheistic in believing in one god, this god however is not the creator."

Should that be Creator, with a capital C? If so, wouldn't it be better to simply say it is not the Judeo-Christian god (because "the Creator" means different things to different religions)? If not, then the article should specify what the god is or isn't the creator of, as this might refer to the fact that Cylons were created by humans. SharkD 03:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Razor Flashbacks

Someone should add information on Razor Flashbacks (67.49.102.154 18:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC))

NPOV Dispute regarding talk page Section 11: External Links

NPOV dispute [- External Links]

The writer of this article and other editors refuse to allow the following external links to be added: www.cylon.org www.colonialfleets.com www.battlestargalacticaclub.com

These are the premiere sites when seeking information on the original series. They contain vastly more information on the original series, than any other external link currently listed. Including articles, artwork, interviews, convention schedules, and more, which cannot be found anywhere else. In fact, new articles and information about the original series rarely comes from any other source at this time.

These are highly authoritative sites in regards to the original series. They have close connections with many of the cast and crew of the original series who are frequently interviewed by these sites, and even with Tom DeSanto who led a failed revival.

The reason I am filing this NPOV dispute, is because the majority of the external sites that are listed are all very friendly to the new 2003 series. The sites that I feel should be added, are highly critical of the new 2003 series, and I feel that is why they are not being allowed to be added or maintained. If a neutral point of view is Wikipedia's goal, then these three external links should be added and maintained.

I also feel this is an NPOV dispute, because the external links were removed after Arkana stated that they shouldn't be there because of "...the huge chip on the shoulders of some original series fans who continue to hate the new series." In other words, she thinks that they shouldn't be there because they don't like the new 2003 series. Disallowing sites because they don't like the new 2003 series is a violation of neutrality.

Additionally when I asked if there were a higher authority I could address this matter with, I was not referred to the NPOV dispute, instead I was flatly told there is no other authority. This further indicates a problem with the neutrality of the external links section.

Furthermore, no additional discussion on the matter in Section 11 has occured for some time, leading me to believe that it's being avoided.

---Jjrakman 22:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a neutrality issue. Those sites aren't appropriate for a listing because they're fan sites. It has nothing to with their criticism of the new series. Trying to frame this as an NPOV dispute is silly. (I looked at Cylon.org. The index page was so covered in Amazon affiliate links that I couldn't even begin to find any evidence of how "highly authoritative" this site is.)

Also, decisions around here are made by editor consensus. There isn't really a hierarchy of editors who overrule other editors, so no, you don't get to try to go over someone's head.

Based on your editing history here, it seems like your only concern with the Wikipedia is making sure that these fan sites get listed here. That's a shame, because there are a lot of cool things that could be done around here to improve the encyclopedia. Rray 04:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually it's not silly in the least. I feel it is absolutely a neutrality issue.

What is silly though, is that the external links were initially removed in response to Arkana's less than neutral statement which I reference above. The fact that they were removed in response to such a non neutral statement, makes it a neutrality issue.

In addition, there is not a single external site listed that offers a critical view point of the new 2003 series, making the external sites that are listed skewed to one point of view.

Furthermore, beyond simply repeating yourself, you have been unable to prove your points.

You repeatedly state that these sites are not allowed because they are fans sites. Then by your own stated standards, battlestargalactica.com should be removed, Battlestar Wiki should be removed, and Battlestar Hub should be removed as these are all fan sites. If these fan sites that are favorable to the new 2003 series are allowed, why then are fan sites critical to the new 2003 series not allowed? You have yet to reconcile this double standard.

So yes, it is a neutrality issue.

As far as Cylon.org, it has 6 small Amazon ads, promoting DVD's for shows they like. This hardly qualifies as being "so covered". Your inability to simply click on the menu buttons on the left side of the page, which outnumber the Amazon ads by the way, simply indicates your unwillingness to do so. It does not indicate a lack of information, which in fact there is much of, for anyone willing to click more than once. Regardless, your point on this does not address the remaining two sites I suggest.

As far as editor consensus, I hope some of the testing going on in the Germany site will help resolve this matter in time.

There may be other cool things that could be done with the encyclopedia, but I think I'll just stick with this for now.

---Jjrakman 00:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Since decisions here are made by consensus, you might take a moment to think about how you come across in a discussion. I don't think your attitude is going to win many people over to your way of thinking. Anyway, I think this is one of those situations where it's better to just ignore the troll, so I'll bow out of this conversation now. Best of luck with your linkbuilding efforts. Rray 12:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. I was merely addressing you in the exact same manner in which you addressed me, with the same snarky sarcasm that you initiated. I guess that makes you a troll as well. If you think that you are somehow above being treated in the exact same manner as you treat others, you are sorely mistaken.

If there's anyone here that should be concerned about how their behavior is perceived by others, it should be you. You are a poor representative for Wikipedia. Someone brings a genuine issue to the table and you address it with little more than sarcasm, name calling, and accusations. You hardly exhibit the behavior of a model editor, and thus should be removed. —Preceding Jjrakman comment added by 69.210.119.76 (talk) 22:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, your attempt to avoid the issue through name-calling and unwillingness to tackle each issue fails to actually address the double standard here, and is further evidence in and of itself of the neutrality issue at hand.

If links to pro-new-2003-series fan sites are allowed, then why are links to anti-new-2003-series fan sites not allowed? Conversely, if links to anti-new-2003-series fan sites are to be removed, then why are links to pro-new-2003-series fan sites not to be removed?

This is a legitimate question. Until it is satisfactorily answered with logic and reason as opposed to petty name-calling and absurd accusations of silliness, there is a neutrality issue here. ---Jjrakman 17:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed fan-sites in accordance with WP:EL policy. I'm not really sure why you couldn't just have done this in the first place before starting a rather pointless argument?--Thetriangleguy 23:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thetriangleguy, Thank you for your reponse. The reason I started this conversation, is that I understand Wikipedia frowns on repeated editing. So I thought a discussion on the matter was warranted, and that a record of it should be made.

Furthermore, I was attempting to better understand the policy you posted, because the application of that policy here was inconsistent at best, and specific questions as to the application of the policy were met with nothing more than childish tantrums and name calling, as opposed to giving actual answers like an adult. You can read this here and in Section 11. In accordance with the policy you have posted, I have taken the liberty of removing the final fansite, Battlestar Wiki. I thank you very much for your involvement in this matter.

---Jjrakman 16:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

"The web comes through..."

Removed following portion due to high POV:

The new (version) starting since 2004 is an intensely dramatic, interesting, challenging show, acclaimed by critics. It makes bold statements, gives hints, and asks challenging questions about society and reality. What it says, and how it continues and progresses, is an important sign of our own existence and future. The dialogue is often very interesting and controversial. The web comes through, and the script text is available online at: www.twiztv.com/scripts/battlestar/

The link could be interesting though, but i'm not sure if those scripts are copyright protected or not and wether or not linking to them falls under fair use. Anyone with more experience? 213.224.72.32 (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Religion Section

I think the section on religious influences belongs in the articles for the 1978 series. Ronald Moore has taken pains in the reimagined series to remove most of the references to Mormonism, with perhaps the sole exception of Kobol. Thoughts? Mokwella 20:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Although Ronald Moore seems to have removed many of the references to Mormonism, there are still considerable religious influences within the show, such as the parallels between the Lords of Kobol and the Greek Gods, and between the Twelve Colonies and the twelve signs of the zodiac. Also, the religious differences between the monotheistic Cylons and the polytheistic Humans plays a very large role in the reimagined show, particularly in the development of Gaius Baltar's character and the relationship between Helo and Sharon. Perhaps the religious references should be separated by series? I am slightly hesitant to do this, however, because while the references to Mormonism have reduced emphasis in the reimagined series, the references still exist—there is still (or was still) a Quorum of Twelve, many references to the Thirteenth Tribe which settled on Earth, and the reference to Kobol. I say: separate out references which are of import only to the 1978 series, and leave the rest in a general "Religious and mythological references" section. Thoughts? Abhorsen327 15:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is a wide usage of terminology and colloquialisms that are distinct to the Mormon culture that has developed around the Mormon religion. I believe that is how they can get away with it without being noticed too much. For the most part, the integration of words from many, many other religions is used to give them an alien culture that seems to say, "Hey, this is where our current world religions evolved from." This gives it a more plausible Sci-Fi feel such as the use of hard theory in futuristic technology that is common in popular shows like Star Trek or the use of history and legend that is common in Stargate SG1.76.247.248.106 (talk) 16:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

True enough. The broader section on religious themes, which includes the references to Mormonism as one influence, seems to be the way to go. Mokwella 01:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

This topic has been broken off into another article, so future discussions should occur there. — Val42 (talk) 06:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Differences

• Didn't there used to be a page dedicated to the major differences between the 1978 and 2003 versions? 41.245.156.70 (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Music

Does somebody know why the musical main theme at the beginning changed in pitch? Through season one the theme began with the pitch C4 (middle C) and then changed one semitone downwards to B3. Is that intentional or accidental? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.196.223.53 (talk) 13:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Military science fiction

Should BSG be identified as genre Military_science_fiction in the main article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.103.28.84 (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Battle Attack?

Why does the lead line say Battle Attack? Am I missing something? I searched wikipedia in case I was. I also checked the history, and can't find the origin of this line, maybe its from day one?VeeFourAJ (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment on articles for individual television episodes and characters

A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion or exclusion of episode and character, as well as other fiction articles. Please visit the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. Ikip (talk) 11:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Can someone put a 'tv show badge'

Like on the right hand side of this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_above_and_beyond I think the topic deserves one. 94.194.208.212 (talk) 02:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Caprica

As Caprica has not been greenlit and there is no firm plans to ever produce the show, I think the article needs to be redirected here and any valuable information incorporated into this article. 128.151.71.16 (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Latest information/rumor has it will be aired soon as it is in production now. --213.197.252.145 (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Not yet, the projsct is on the back burner for the present. There is pleny of material on the subject with references to remain a stand alone article. ant_ie (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, I also oppose because I feel merging these articles together would make the BG article overly cumbersome.Naufana : talk 03:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Naufana. Robert Brockway (talk) 03:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:IINFO. We don't have an article for every television project in development. The majority of the information in the article would presumably disappear if the show was ever actually produced (i.e., it is mostly information about the development ups and downs of the project, and speculation on what it might be about). Clconway (talk) 05:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge. It seems utterly pointless to have a seperate article on a "maybe". I also think that article needs to be cut down. Is it really necessary to have all this on a proposed series? It seems enough to just quickly describe the plot (as seen on this page) and a short paragraph on the project's status. For instance, the last paragraph of that article (much of which appears to me to be opinion) could probably be cut down to a single sentence.--Thetriangleguy (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Ant ie. However it could possibly do with a rewrite. --AJFurnell (talk) 11:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - made into a current event now. Will ^(talk) 02:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Moot as it is already been produced Trentc (talk) 23:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Caprica: Movie

No mention of the movie. Isn't it the basis, or pilot, of the TV show? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noloop (talk • contribs) 03:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)