Talk:Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series)/Archive 1

message: I removed these, and I must warn you; I think this guy just made these up.  For example, when he says "Roslin and Billy are taken prisoner", we have actually heard who is going to be hostage in that episode and Roslin ain't one of them.  In addition, for "Scar", he says that the Cylon ace pilot kills 20 Colonial pilots; that's HALF of the pilots they have!  Galactica itself only has like 30 pilots left, and even if these were doubled by the addition of Pegasus, this would mean that in a single episode, a single Cylon would kill more pilots than have ever died since the show BEGAN!  Preposterous.
Further, he made up this ENTIRE storyline about "Pegasus returning to the Colonies to liberate survivors"; excuse me, but we've heard descriptions of *ALL* episodes until the season 2 finale, and there is NOTHING about this in there!!  And this whole thing about Anders resistance, Starbuck being pregnant, Ander's sacrificing himself; NO information anywhere even remotely supports this, and most of our current info CONTRADICTS this!
And HOW would the ressurection ship being destroyed affect the pregnant Sharon?! She wasn't PLANNING on dying, as this would kill her child in her current body!
ON TOP OF THIS, for the Cylon "peace offering" at the end of Season 2, he says that Leoben will be sent; this isn't even current; NEW news said that instead of Leoben, it will now be a Number Six and a Sharon.  Yikes.
Don't be afraid, base NONE of your expectations for season 2 on the garbage this guy made.  --Ricimer 19:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The "Spoilers" on January 11, 2005

message: Hi. Really don't want to get involved in anything contentious, but I'd appreciate if something could be cleared up for me (Or perhaps I could get a consensus of opinion). I recall a little earlier in the history of this article, there were "spoilers" (Read: descriptions of plot events yet to come) ... this was during the first half of season 2. Also, a warning of potential spoilers / plot details is placed DIRECTLY in this article at the top of the section (which I think is a good idea).
So, what I'm getting at is: given that this isn't a sci-fi blog / fan site [which I'm not putting down, since I love sites like that :)], but rather, an informational encyclopedic article, shouldn't we be including all verifiable information that is available?
I'm strongly thinking that we should, and that includes the fact that two additional plot lines are the President's struggle with cancer and the peace offer by the Cylons. But, this is really a more general issue.
I'm interested in responses / thoughts. --141.161.69.157 00:27, January 19, 2006 (UTC)
:Nobody is censoring this information. I just personally don't think it belongs in THIS particular article, whose purpose is general encyclopedic information about a television show, not about "what happens next". If you so desperately want the information to be available, create a seperate article: Battlestar Galactica (spoilers) or something along those lines. By all means, go ahead. Include as much relevant information as you wish on the topic of future storylines. For the rest of us, we're trying to put together an article on the CURRENT television show, not the as-yet-unseen version of it, and this article most certainly does not exist to "spoil" the show for everybody, despite the fact that there's a spoiler warning on the page. That warning applies only for things that are already well-known by viewers but not by those who haven't seen the show yet. --Ilyag 05:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: wondering why we can't put info about story arcs that are known as true -- Nothing is "known as true" until an episode actually airs. Shows can be changed/pulled/reordered at any time, so things only become canon once they've actually aired. Please refrain from putting anything in the article that has yet to be aired. -- Scjessey 13:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Presence of "Spoilers

message: I've just reverted a change regarding the military rank of Major. First of all, we know that Doctor Cottle has the rank of major. Secondly, Ron Moore states in his blog that the rank exists, so we may yet meet more majors in the future. -- Scjessey 14:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely not.  First, the edit already says "besides Dr. Cottle, there are no majors" so Dr. Cottle is already covered there. Nextly, the RANK exists, but there were no majors on GALACTICA.  All of the majors were on other ships.  Case in point, command succession went from Colonel Tigh to Captain Kelly, who served as first officer at the beginning of season 3 when Tigh was in command.  RDM's blog post proves nothing about whether there were Majors physically on the ship, just that such a rank exists.  I'm reverting this edit back.  Be more careful in the future.--Ricimer 20:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Forgive me for saying so, but that doesn't make any sense. How can you know there are no other majors? We know the rank exists because of (a) the Doctor, and (b) RDM's blog. There is no way to categorically say there are no other majors, because you have no evidence one way or another. Captain Kelly may have been preferred by Colonel Tigh over another choice - there is nothing to say that the Captain became the first officer automatically. Also, there hasn't even been a season 3 - we are just over halfway through the second season. I'm altering the edit again -- Scjessey 21:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Majors 

message: I've removed external links that don't add anything to the article. General sci-fi discussion sites that aren't specifically featuring BSG(2004) are not relevant. -- Scjessey 01:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: no merge
NO MERGER: It has been suggested that this article be merged with Battlestar Galactica (2003), but I think that is a bad idea. An AOL user removed the merger template tag, and it has since been restored. I agree with the AOL user (ack!) - merging the articles would be a bit odd, since it was created from a previously overlong article in the first place. Any other votes? -- Scjessey 22:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scjessey said: "We are talking about merging the article on the 2004 television series with the article that discusses the reimagined Battlestar Galactica universe. That would be like merging Star Wars (a general article about the saga) with Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi"  
Not really, because Star Wars is such a vast universe that the universe itself can be discussed in terms of all the various incarnations under one article, and each of the larger examples of those can merit their own articles.  There is certainly enough distinct info for each of the six feature films to merit individual articles for those.  But with BG, the only two incarnations of the BG universe are the miniseries and the ongoing series.  You don't need both individual articles for the mini and the ongoing and one for the universe itself.  Any article on the universe could simply be a merger of the info on the mini and the ongoing.  And if each of those two is so distinct and expansive that they merit their own, then, IMO, you don't need a separate one for the universe itself, which would be superfluous. Nightscream 03:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps you are right, but surely you can see that we are talking about merging the wrong articles at least? I think the mythology and information surrounding Battlestar Galactica will begin to rival Star Wars and Star Trek in the future. That would lead to a re-splitting of any merged articles. Anyway, since the article was split in the first place, I think it should remain the way it is until/unless a significant number of Wikipedians call for a merger. So far, we only have 2 votes for a merger, and 2 votes against (if you include the AOL user). -- Scjessey 12:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Two things... one no merger, two, there are no "votes". Just opinions. This is not a vote.Gateman1997 08:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Merging them doesn't seem like the best idea. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears there are now two people in favor of a merger, and four against. Given the time that has passed, I am removing the merger proposition. -- Scjessey 23:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article merger 

message: We are not talking about separating seasons - all seasons of the television series appear in this article already. We are talking about merging the article on the 2004 television series with the article that discusses the reimagined Battlestar Galactica universe. That would be like merging Star Wars (a general article about the saga) with Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi (an article about a specific part of the Star Wars saga). The merger makes no sense in either case. Consider what we actually have:
* Battlestar Galactica (2003)
**Battlestar Galactica (2003 miniseries)
**Battlestar Galactica (2004 television series)
The Battlestar Galactica (2003) is the parent article for the mini series and television series articles. We are talking about merging one of the children with its parent. IF a merger has to occur, it makes sense to merge the siblings. Having said that, I think there is more than enough information to require the separate articles we have now. -- Scjessey 13:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scjessey said: "We are talking about merging the article on the 2004 television series with the article that discusses the reimagined Battlestar Galactica universe. That would be like merging Star Wars (a general article about the saga) with Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi"  
Not really, because Star Wars is such a vast universe that the universe itself can be discussed in terms of all the various incarnations under one article, and each of the larger examples of those can merit their own articles.  There is certainly enough distinct info for each of the six feature films to merit individual articles for those.  But with BG, the only two incarnations of the BG universe are the miniseries and the ongoing series.  You don't need both individual articles for the mini and the ongoing and one for the universe itself.  Any article on the universe could simply be a merger of the info on the mini and the ongoing.  And if each of those two is so distinct and expansive that they merit their own, then, IMO, you don't need a separate one for the universe itself, which would be superfluous. Nightscream 03:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps you are right, but surely you can see that we are talking about merging the wrong articles at least? I think the mythology and information surrounding Battlestar Galactica will begin to rival Star Wars and Star Trek in the future. That would lead to a re-splitting of any merged articles. Anyway, since the article was split in the first place, I think it should remain the way it is until/unless a significant number of Wikipedians call for a merger. So far, we only have 2 votes for a merger, and 2 votes against (if you include the AOL user). -- Scjessey 12:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Two things... one no merger, two, there are no "votes". Just opinions. This is not a vote.Gateman1997 08:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Merging them doesn't seem like the best idea. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears there are now two people in favor of a merger, and four against. Given the time that has passed, I am removing the merger proposition. -- Scjessey 23:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Makes no sense

message: The second paragraph offers no references for "fan criticism", or for comments by Ronald D. Moore regarding the quality of the work. It also uses the American slang "jumping the shark", which will not be understood by anyone outside the North American continent. -- Scjessey 14:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production -- Season 2 section 

message: Why does this article seem to have separated season 2 into two halfs, season 2 and season 2.5? It's all season 2. Yes there was a break between the halves when shown on US television but that's always the case isn't it? Also just because the DVDs are being released as two box sets doesn't make the season two real halves, it's just following the DVD release model that has become commonplace in other countries. Ben W Bell 07:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a little ambiguous. The show was produced in two ten-episode blocks, which were written and shot in entirely seperate production blocks, but it is still technically referred to as Season 2. It is a different production model from the usual, and the television community (both viewers and network) are often confused by anything different. Still, I think it is probably accurate to treat them as two halfs, since that is how they were produced and how they were aired. It might become more common-- the same thing is happening next season with Lost. BarkingDoc 21:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season 2.5 

message: There is a great deal of original research/editorial theorizing in this article. It needs to be pruned down to just the facts about the show, not opinions about the themes and ideas. BarkingDoc 21:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Original Research

message: # Definitely.  They contain useful information about notable characters from a very popular series.  Editors worked hard to create these articles, their work shouldn't be thrown away.  Dionyseus 05:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes

message: # Definitely. They contain trivial information out of proportion to their importance to the show. The Brother_Cavil is particularly bad, being not much more than an extended plot summary gussied up with an infobox and a zillion categories. --Calton | Talk 07:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No