Talk:Battlestar Galactica: The Second Coming
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled
editAnd the question still remains.
Has anyone else out there seen the trailer recently?
Richard Hatch shows the trailer only at conventions he attends. His reasoning, prior to the new series coming out, was that as he was trying to use it to gain studio support for the project, he did not allow it to be downloadable over the net in order to keep the look of it professional. --BlueSquadronRaven 00:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Not only to keep it professional, but also to keep Universal off his back legally. As long as he doesn't make a dime and doesn't let it leak out, they probably agreed to look the other way.
The trailer is readily available these days on YouTube.Wyldstaar (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
The neutrality of this article is disputed?
editThere is a 'The neutrality of this article is disputed' tag on the article. What's the dispute? I came to this talk page and I don't see anything about it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't add the tag, but I presume the tag's there because the article appears to take sides. The bigger issue is that it has no citations at all. Xihr 20:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Uhm, it seems from the edit history that you did add the POV tag. [1] Oh well, since no-one is interested in explaining why the tag was placed I'm going to remove it. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 23:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Possibly related to the above, there was an unsourced statement regarding Hatch's finances with regards to this production. Without a reputable source, this statement is totally unacceptable under the WP:BLP policy and I have removed it from the article. Note that under the policies WP:RS and WP:NOR even if Hatch made such a comment at one of the showings, we can't use that as a source. There has to be a magazine or book reference, or a reference on a reputable website (for now Wikipedia does not accept most blogs as RS) in order for such information to be cited here. 23skidoo (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)