Talk:Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series)

message: In order to clear the air I have discussed the issue with two administrators and it has been agreed that the issue be resolved by WP:DR as consensus seems unlikely, to show good faith I have included the citations I plan to use in the WP:DR Transnational Television Drama: Special Relations and Mutual Influence, page, CLIV <Weissmann page 154, a media expert http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/media/staff/dr-elke-weissmann/, further citations: Global Television Formats: Understanding Television across Borders, London: Rutledge, CDVIIITasha Oren and Sharon Shahaf (eds), 406><Oren and Shahaf, page CDVIII and Envisioning Media Power:On Capital and Geographies of Television Page 267 "Envisioning Media Power: On Capital and Geographies of Television", page CCLXIX Brett Christophers, 267><Christophers, page CCLXIX.  Best Wishes Twobells (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: What's your intention here though? Are you solely arguing for more content in article regarding co-production (because I was already okay with that), or are you also arguing that the UK is also country of origin? Also, could you please fix up those references up by making them more accessible by including links to the actual sources. It's a bit confusing because ref 3 and 4 are the same thing, and 5 and 6 are the same thing. To note, I've looked at those sources (via Google Books); Global Television Formats: Understanding Television Across Borders does not mention Battlestar Galactica or the words "country of origin" anywhere; and Transnational Television Drama: Special Relations and Mutual Influence and Envisioning Media Power: On Capital and Geographies of Television do not mention "country of origin". To take away from these sources that state BSG is a co-production (which I never argued with, simply on the weight that the US and UK are equal in this instance) that UK is also country of origin is simply WP:SYNTH. No source you have given explicitly states the UK is also country of origin, that is the problem. I've already laid out my sources, which is the series end credits and official copyright laws that define country of origin.Drovethrughosts (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm calling for what I've always called for and that is the Wiki article for BSG 2004 includes in the info-box that the show is a UK-US production with brackets stating 'season 1' and 'season 4' (for some reason SKY1 credits were added to the last episode of S4 and Blood & Chrome) for the sake of complete authenticity. The secondary links are the authors, each book reference citation confirms that BSG 2004 was a UK-US (using the alphabet as is the case in all Anglo-American co productions, not being partisan) co-production. Also, it is not WP:Synth as each author confirms that BSG 2004 was an international co-production as explicitly stated by the sources.. Btw, why are you hung up on this 'equality' thing? I am talking about which networks produced and financed the show as reflected by the media experts citations. In closing, please see this The International Federation of Film Archives defines the country of origin as the country of the principal offices of the production company or individual by whom the moving image work was made  which in BSG 2004's case was Universal TV and Sky1 Twobells (talk) 11:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: What I mean by "equal" is that the UK is nowhere near as important as the US in terms of its relationship to the series. The series was not a 50/50 production between to two for the entire series run. Sky1 was not involved with the series after season 1 and did not receive the same air dates as the US (except for season 1). Its involvement is pretty minimal in scope of the entire series. Per the series pick-up press release, "The project will be produced exclusively for SCI FI, in association with Sky One. Your link just further proves my point, Sky1 holds no copyright to BSG, Universal is sole copyright holder for the series. "Principal offices of the production company" is Universal. All you have to do is look at the U.S. Copyright Database, here's a link for the entry for the first episode, "33" which gives the publication date and copyright owner. Here's a link to an image of the back cover of the complete series set of BSG (region 2) that displays the copyright, and again, it's Universal, no Sky1 to be found. If you search for "Battlestar Galactica" at the UK copyright database, nothing comes up (except for the old series). I think I've proven my point. The lead should still state "...in an American military science fiction television series" but I'm perfectly fine with another sentence stating something like, "The series was produced by Universal Television, with Sky1 co-producing the first season". Mention the co-production all you want, the fact that it aired in the UK on Sky1 first, because it's all true; but it's false and misleading to treat the UK/Sky1's involvement as if it's the same as what Universal/Sci-Fi's was. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I have been away on business and just returned to the UK, okay where are we? Wikipedia is not interested in 'equality' it is interested in factual information, that information is that BSG 2004 was a Anglo-American co-production as reflected by both American and British citations. Sky1 in collaboration with Universal TV enabled the show to become the success it was, the decision not to fund further seasons was a joint agreement after the decision was taken for Sky1 to fund further Anglo-American co-productions with Universal and Fox TV. It is now getting really silly, you are using original research to fight legitimate media citations, that is NOT allowed. Twobells (talk) 10:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

text:  Sky's participation was limited to partial funding of one season.  It was a limited participant for a limited time and then was gone.  That does not make it a co-production.  Go look at how PBS/BBC or PBS/ITN co-productions such as Downton Abbey or Sherlock are handled, where WGBH/Masterpiece a full partner and Rebecca Eaton is identified as a producer.  They are still identified as British productions because they are made by the BBC or ITN, and this is when PBS's role is considerably larger and longer term than what you are citing here.  As Drovethrughosts has already noted, to represent Sky as an equal partner in the production completely misrepresents its role and who produced the show.  BSC is an American production which had some limited British and Canadian funding for one season, that's all.  It is not a US/UK co-production, and it is not an international productions.  Moreover, your sources, frankly do nothing to help your case.  I can only identify, much less access one, and it's an academic publication (i.e. a tertiary source) that is only tangentially on point as Drovethrughosts has previously noted.  You've done nothing to help your case, but have actually weakened it.  --Drmargi (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: With respect you are repeating what I already wrote above, it was a joint international co-production and as such Wikipedia needs to reflect that reality. I don't think you quite realise how important first run seasons are in deciding whether a show will continue or not, it was Sk1's and Universals foresight that gave us BSG 2004 and I still don't see what the problem is reflecting that. Every citation I have attempted to add confirms that BSG 2004 was a Anglo-American co production, I believe now you cannot dismiss expert opinion with your frankly ludicrous analysis of the situation, essentially what you are doing is seconding guessing expert opinion as reflected by the citations with original research which is completely unacceptable and I am now starting to believe that you and Drmargi are prevaricating in an attempt to prevent legitimate edits being added to the article, as such I must now put it to DR. Twobells (talk) 10:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice Of Dispute Resolution Regarding 'International Co-Production' Issue 

message: I've added the tags in the short term as I expect that we'll resolve this pretty quickly, unfortunately I was away for a few days and the DRN was closed prematurely. Essentially, the tense has never been the issue just the fact that the show is an Anglo-American/US-UK co-production. We need to write up a section on production (unusual that it is missing) and add 'UK' to the info-box with 'seasons 1, 4' in brackets.
* Edit. I have read the archived DRN and it seems that the tags are unnecessary, I'll remove them.Twobellst@lk 14:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality Tags 

message: Because of many similarities or common details, the series may have been influenced by the Macross 7 Anime series, whicn in turn may have been influenced by the 1978 Galactica series. The Macross Frontier Anime sequel then might again be influemced by BSG (2004). It doesn not negate the influence of Star Wars or other epic SciFi, but the specific closeness in the general story and many details (like key symbols, technical design, sounds, camera work) suggest a field of shared inspirations.   
 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.134.143.244 (talk) 00:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influenced by Macross ? 

message: I'm sorry, he should get an Oscar.  What planet are you people living on?? 24.51.217.35 (talk) 19:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you mean Emmy. To answer your question: Hogan is listed there because he's not credited in the opening credits, but after, in the "secondary" starring billing block. "Main cast" is solely actors who received opening credits billing. I hope that answers your questions. Drovethrughosts (talk) 19:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  The use of secondary is a poor choice; it should be supporting.  I'm curious how the line between supporting and recurring is drawn, given may of the actors, including Hogan, Douglas and Penniket, are billed as main cast, just not in the opening credits. Moreover, I'd include some of the Cylons (particularly Leoben) as supporting; they're critical to moving the story forward.  ----Dr.Margi ✉ 19:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the change. I reorganized the cast list a bit a few months ago as there was a bunch of inconsistencies in how some of the actors were listed. We always distinguish "main" vs. "recurring" etc. per the actors' billing. So, main = opening credits billing; supporting = actors credited after the opening credits (essentially also series regulars) but before guest stars; recurring = any notable actors/characters who are credited as guest stars. There's also hidden notes in the cast section explaining it.  Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I saw the hidden notes after I left the above.  Maybe it would help to group the recurring cast under some sub-headings.  Let me play with it. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 21:18, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

text:  That organizes them better. We need to identify the final five, and add an explanatory note. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 21:44, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael Hogan as "secondary character" 

message: I just spotted this when reading about a proposed movie of Battlestar Galatica, just take a look at the picture in this link and what does it remind you of i will give you a clue (the Last Supper)
https://www.joblo.com/assets/images/joblo/news/2018/12/battlestardinner.jpg  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.102.143 (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Themes 

message: I believe we should add another genre onto the genre section. It should be tragedy because BSG shares many hallmarks of tragedy especially Greek Tragedy. Tragedy being a genre of suffering that invokes catharsis in the audience. And one of the main point of the show was the constant suffering faced by the characters themselves.
(Prietodream talk) 14:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: We can only add what reliable sources call it. If you can find references of reliable third parties consistently calling it a tragedy then it can be added. One reference won't do, per WP:CATDEFINE it needs to be defining and needs to be consistently referred to as such by third parties. Canterbury Tail talk 23:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genre 

message: Many people consider the term "ethnic" to be offensive when describing non-European or non-Western culture or people. Conventional Western orchestral instruments like the violin and piano have ethnic origins as well, in the ethnicities of Europe. The offense arises from the Eurocentrism of describing non-European cultures as "ethnic" without describing European-derived cultures in the same way. It's also somewhat inaccurately used to introduce the list, because "Middle Eastern" describes multiple ethnicities in a way that Japanese and Armenian do not. If you don't like "non-European" because it "European" is ambiguous as to whether it includes European-derived cultures like the United States, then perhaps "non-Western" would be more accurate and less distracting? -- Beland (talk) 21:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't need an adjective at all. Multiple influences and multiple instruments. I removed it. (If folks really think we need a descriptor then I'd suggest something like "global" or "diverse" to note conveyed from numerous places/cultures)--ZimZalaBim talk 21:38, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely agree. Ethnic can be interpreted purely based on the worldview and, well, ethnicity of the reader and will mean very different things to different people. The use of the word as written was likely from the perspective of assuming the reader would likely be of white European descent, which is a terrible horrible assumption to make. I agree we don't need any kind of word there at all, and certainly not a wishy washy word such as ethnic, it's not necessary for the points being made. Canterbury Tail talk 21:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of the term "ethnic"