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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Anyone want to mention the tri-comparison...

...Between the opening scene of the New president being sworn in, the Babylon 5 similiary with Presidnt Clark, and both of those being rooted in the photo of L. B. Johnson being sworn on Air One after JFK's assination?

The "Spoilers" on January 11, 2005

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)

• I completely agree. Somebody has been writing some very poor and obviously misinformed content on here; probably just a prank, and treat it as such by reverting or fixing it. Smeggysmeg 04:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Presence of "Spoilers

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)

Thanks for the input. Don't get defensive, i.e. "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" I'm just a wayward Galactica fan wondering why we can't put info about story arcs that are known as true within the Galactica article, no matter whether they've aired or not. But I'll definitely defer to the community. Keep up the good work on the article that ALL OF US can enjoy -- leave those "rest of us" at home ;)

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)

Yeah, thanks for that. ("Please refrain from putting anything ...) I already said I wouldn't modify that aspect of the article ...

the score

Obviously a Black Hawk Down rip off. The melodies sound almost identical.

Garbage post. Syfymichael 23:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The following was in the article, when I think it belongs here. I didn't write any of this -- I'm simply moving it.

Although, the music piece could be Metamorphosis Five from Glass's Solo Piano Album (1989) as Metamorphosis One and Five sound almost identical except for a variation in timing.

• Note It is in fact Metamorphosis One as done by Bear McCreary. The beginning is not as bold as the one done by Glass and thus resembles Metamorphosis Five. The greatest distinction is in the end of One versus that of Five. One has an ending that sounds like it "steps down" the scale before fading out, whereas Five continues it's pattern and fades out bit by bit. This "step down" can be identified in the last two instances of the song in the episode "Valley of Darkness".

Majors

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)

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)

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)

External links

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)

Article merger

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was 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)

Merger: I didn't put the merger tag on the article but think it's valid. We wouldn't hive off Friends series 1, 2, 3 etc. and give each seperate articles. All the New BSG (including the mini-series) should be in the same article. It wouldn't be overlong either if compared to (say) World War II or other topics. 193.129.65.37 05:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Makes no sense

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)

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)

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)

Two things... one no merger, two, there are no "votes". Just opinions. This is not a vote.Gateman1997 08:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Merging them doesn't seem like the best idea. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Cylon characters

Is this really necessary? -- Scjessey 19:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I kind of like having them (the humanoid Cylon characters) all in one place, because it's easier to tell that there are only 5 models left that we haven't yet encountered. But, if you feel that it doesn't add anything to the article, feel free to take it out. -- KCcat

I feel strongly that the list of cyclon character is very useful. Joncnunn 21:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

But it's duplication, isn't it? The same information is presented in an earlier section. -- Scjessey 21:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, some of the information is already in an earlier section. But, if you were new to the show, then you might not know that there are only 12 models of the humanoid-appearing Cylons, and that 5 of the 12 models have not yet appeared. What's a good way to deal with the duplication issue? KC 21:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you've answered your own question. Say something like "There are 12 models of humanoid-appearing Cylons, of which 7 have been revealed." That is all that is needed. -- Scjessey 21:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Is 'Simon' the doctor from Caprica?(Halbared 13:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC))

Original channel

The 2004 series premierd on Sky one first, therefore shouldnt it be the original channel?--Matthew Fenton 20:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - The infobox should say Sky One, with an Original Run date of October 18, 2004. -- Scjessey 22:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The Miniseries aired on Sciffy first, and it's just a continuation; the Miniseries was the pilot in effect. I'm moving it back.

Production -- Season 2 section

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)

Moore's comments on the quality of the show, having expanded from 13 to 20 episodes per season order, can be found among his many blog entries on SciFi.com. That statement within the article can, and should, remain; however, most if not all references to public reaction - bulletin boards immediately come to mind here - probably ought to be deleted. Without sources they're simply arguments to assertion, despite the fact that some episodes did receive a less-than-glowing response. Yet it's mostly unsourceable - do you cite individual bulletin boards to prove the claim? Opinions there most definately aren't unified, even on episodes like "Black Market". Do you select individual posts, and if so, why, and which ones? If you select three BBS' to cite, and yet you miss a fourth one heavily frequented by BSG fans - Television Without Pity, for example - how can you justify it? You'll always miss one board. And at the baseline, each and every one of the "polls" taken at these sites are unscientific. Gpotter511@yahoo.com 05:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Season 2.5

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)

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)

Original Research

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)

I'm afraid I am going to be making some very harsh changes to this article. It is not personal, there is just a lot here that is speculative, POV, irrelevant, and uninformative. I'll do my best to justify/explain all the edits I make, so please read comments and engage in discussion if you disagree. BarkingDoc 22:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Merging minor Cylon characters into Cylon article

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus

Does anyone think its a good idea that all the Cylon characters (sans Six and Sharon) were merged into the main Cylon article, when they all previously had their own articles? Characters like Number Three, Leoben Conoy and Aaron Doral all seem important enough to warrant their own article, instead of getting a small paragraph on the main Cylon article. --DrBat 19:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you and i consider his edits vandalism as its pretty obvious someone opposes (now more then one person) MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 19:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I find your grasp of policy lacking. — Philwelch t 19:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Each of those characters have made only a handful of appearances in the show, and their bios contained no information that wasn't already in the episode summaries we also had. If we want the BSG articles to be high-quality it's easier to contain them to a smaller number of merged articles rather than letting them sprawl across multiple stubs with poor writing and sourcing. I'd also like to take this opportunity to mention that if anyone wants to develop an in-depth, comprehensive guide to "Battlestar Galactica", Battlestar Wiki is a wonderful source I have contributed to. When I get to the point where I add cites and references to these articles I'll probably reference it heavily as it makes a great secondary source (the primary source being the episodes themselves). Wikipedia itself, by the way, is supposed to be a *tertiary* source, compiling information that's already been compiled by the secondary sources. — Philwelch t 19:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It has been confirmed my Ronald D. Moore and Lucy Lawless that Number Three will be involved in more then 10 episodes in season three. She also plays a pivotal part in s2. I can cite this interview as well as it is made freely avilabel by Sci Fi channel. That alone qualifys her for an article. Brothers cavil also played pivotal parts in s2, Leonen plays a pivotal part in the mini series and the finale for s2. Also wikipedia is not paper! MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 20:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, what information do we have about these characters that isn't present (or wouldn't be better placed) either in the main Cylon article or in the episode articles? The biographical articles I redirected were basically plot summaries of episodes the characters appeared in describing what they did. Issues like Cavil's atheism, Leoben's mysticism, etc. are simple enough that they can be (and are) adequately represented in this article. Biographical articles should focus not on plot but on *character*, and so far, none of these minor characters have been developed enough to warrant that sort of sprawl. (Characters like Adama, Starbuck, and Six are complex enough that they *should* be explored better in separate articles, on the other hand.) I wouldn't be opposed to giving D'anna/Three her own article once we have information to populate it with (which should be during Season Three), but we don't have enough information as of yet to expand that way. We're all fans of the show here; what would we rather have, a hundred poorly written and cited stubs, or maybe 15-20 articles that are up to GA/FA status? Merging smaller articles on minor characters is how we get from one place to another. — Philwelch t 20:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it needs a copyedit, that doesnt justify the redirect tho. Especially as its opposed. They are also all notable. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 20:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Please tell me what information we can present in those articles that can't be presented here or in episode summaries. — Philwelch t 21:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll copy edit them my selve tommorow, as it stands tehre pretty good at the moment. The fact that also a concensous opposes means the redirect should be removed. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 21:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

There isn't a consensus opposing the redirect. There hasn't even been a *discussion* yet. (Keep in mind that my reading of the consensus is not only trying to reflect the opinions expressed here, but also the opinions I've heard expressed elsewhere in the community regarding general community standards.) While copyediting is rather nice of you, the fact is that article quality tends to degrade unless articles are aggressively maintained, and it's easier to aggressively maintain a smaller number of articles. There's also the fact that, as it stands now, pretty much all of the Battlestar Galactica articles are filled with original research. If we can find sources like Battlestarwiki to cite we can get these articles up to WP standards, but it'll take awhile. Finally, you still haven't told me what information we can present in these articles that can't be better represented in the main Cylon article or in the episode articles. — Philwelch t 21:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, merging seems sensible to me. It's just easier to have and maintain good content that way. Friday (talk) 21:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

At least theres something we agree on, there poorly cited.. it doesnt justidy a redirect when they can be imrpooved, be bold and help make them better! But be aware i'm in the process of radicly improoving them and citing.. I've already started on Battlestar, Basestar, Cylon Heavy Raider, Cylon Raider etc. (Also merging woudl make excesivley long pages, and also wikipedia is not paper) MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 21:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Merging would only make for long pages if everything written on the individual character articles was absolutely necessary, which it obviously is not. Danny Lilithborne 21:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Part of Wikipedia being a tertiary source (i.e. an encyclopedia) is that in-depth analysis is generally left to secondary sources (i.e. BattlestarWiki). A lot of information presented in, for instance, the articles on minor Cylon characters wouldn't be merged *here* so much as to the episode summary articles (if need be). Another important factor is that Wikipedia articles on fictional entities should describe their relevance to the real world. BSG has a lot of room for this (as multiple published sources have drawn parallels with contemporary issues). A good expression of this posted by Mark Gallager on the mailing list:

There's three approaches I've seen taken towards fictional worlds:

• The GUNDAM approach. This is: "Here, have some stastistics about our ships. which are really cool. They do 120 points of damage each throw!"

• The STAR WARS approach. This is: "Okay, we all know that /Star Wars/ isn't real, and our guidelines on context and dealing with fiction oblige us to tell you that. Nevertheless, we'll pretend that it is, so you will not be able to understand this article unless you're prepared for that. Now, here's what the books tell you about /Star Wars/ --- what, you didn't know the books were more important than the films? You silly sausage! What follows is a biography of Wedge Antilles, who you've probably never even heard of, you prat."

• The DOCTOR WHO approach. This is: "/Doctor Who/ is a television programme. One of its fictional creatures is a Dalek. The Dalek design was inspired by a pepper pot, or something, I dunno, and it's significant in the real world for <X reasons/>. In the /Doctor Who/ universe, the Dalek is <explain Dalek on-show/>."

Now, the GUNDAM approach is impossible to understand if you aren't already a die-hard freak. The STAR WARS approach meets our guidelines (therefore, your "what policy?" approach is well satisfied) but is bloody difficult for someone who hasn't read the novels, watched the cartoons, and studied the website as if prospecting for gold, to understand --- imagine a /Star Trek/ article that gave Captain Kirk's birth and time-of-thriving only as stardates and based his early life "biography" on obscure comments from Gene Roddenberry. The DOCTOR WHO approach is *exactly* what we want to see: non-fans are able to find out what the hell is going on, and not required to live in the fictional universe the article describes

The BSG-space on Wikipedia seems somewhere between the Star Wars and Doctor Who approach, depending on which article we're looking at. I'd like to move it more towards Doctor Who. — Philwelch t 21:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to compromise, the only article i strongly object to being merged is Number Three, while it needs imrpoovement (i will make some my self tommorow) you could also help, so could other editors. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 21:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for the other Cylon characters, but we know for a fact that the Number Three character is going to be big in season three. I don't see why we have to hold on her article until season three actually happens, since she's already appeared in the series (its not like she's a character who people have talked about, but hasn't appeared yet). Also, her character is notable in that she's been garnering a lot of press. [1]

There was some talk on eventually redirecting Helena Cain's page as well; while she only appeared in three episodes, in those three episodes she was a major character with a big impact on everyone else; its not like a minor character like Gaeta or Billy. I don't think she should be redirected either (though her article does need to be cleaned up, as it's really a one-sided view on her). --DrBat 23:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Just in case anyones intrested pulse at scifi.com has the comiccon bsg panel interview (Lawless is on the panel) this confirms she in at least 10 episodes. It is also a great interview! (Will discuss this more in morning, time for bed) MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 23:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The reason we should wait until the third season to expand D'anna's bio is that we don't have enough information about the character because she's only appeared in two episodes. You can't expand an article if you don't have content to expand it with. Cain should probably be merged into a larger article, but I could see Tigh having his own. — Philwelch t 01:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, future discussion on Biers/Three should go to Talk:Number Three while development goes to Talk:Number Three/temp. — Philwelch t 01:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I have just now learned of this discussion, why was this not posted in the Cylon article? I believe Aaron_Doral and Brother_Cavil deserve their own articles, they clearly contained useful information not available in the Cylon article. [2] [3] When I reverted Philwelch's redirect, he banned me without warning me or discussing with me. An administrator quickly unblocked me and called his block inappropiate. I'm not sure what step should be taken next, mediation? Dionyseus 04:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You are not the only one to be blocked, my advice is to let it go and work with us to improove Number Three. We will be seeing said cylons as well so we can give them articles next season (or when we get a verifiable source) MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 06:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The subjects of these articles pass WP:BIO, Philwelch was wrong to revert war, he was wrong to abuse his blocking powers, and he was wrong to try to force the merge without first reaching concensus. He has been blocked for 24 hours for violation of 3RR in three articles. [4] Dionyseus 07:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I know (we know) they all warrant articles, i fear being blocked again however. While he deserved his block maybe 24 hours is a bit long, 6 hours is fairer he was acting in GF but did it in a seriously bad way. Would you like me to move Number Three into an article? MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 07:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not an appropriate time or place for further discussion of Phil; please stick to the article, ANI, or user talk pages.

That said, it's not unusual for experienced editors to boldy redirect or merge; however, I think what we see here is clearly a lack of consensus supporting such a move. When boldness collides with a lack of consensus, lack of consensus wins, and some discussion is called for. Phil has a valid point; so do the rest of you. Wait until he gets back and then talk amongst yourselves for a while until something makes sense.

Georgewilliamherbert 07:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

To let everyone know, Philwelch has been blocked for 24 hours by Samir, the official reason is because of violating the 3RR to change the redirects for the Cylon characters. Although this argument has raged all day I do feel bad it had to come down to being blocked himself. We need to resolve this issue without losing our tempers. No one needs to get banned over this. Cyberia23 07:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

About the articles, YES they should remain on their own and not grouped together. The show is still ongoing and details will change. We may or may not see certain characters again, like Brother Cavil and Simon, but we have to wiat and see really. Cyberia23 07:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

They deserve an article even if they don't come back because they were at least once characters in a popular television show, which means they pass the "Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions" criteria in WP:BIO. Dionyseus 07:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes they deserve articles of tehre own, and yes we will be seeing them again. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 08:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Survey

I believe a survey will be useful in determining whether or not there's a concensus. Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position you support, preferably adding a brief comment. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion", though brief commentary can be interspersed. Survey will be open for 7 days starting now: 05:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Question: Should the Aaron_Doral, Brother_Cavil, and Leoben_Conoy articles remain, or should they be merged into Cylon_(Battlestar_Galactica)? Here's what the Aaron Doral article looked like: [5] Here's what the Brother Cavil article looked like: [6] And here's what the Leoben Conoy article looked like: [7]

The following discussion is an archived survey. Please do not modify it.

The result of the survey was keep, no concensus to merge.

Yes

1. 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)
   • • Additionally, these characters are notable, they pass the "Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions" criteria of WP:BIO. Dionyseus 18:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
2. They absolutely should have their own articles. I can't believe this is even an issue. As it is the Cylon and BSG articles are getting too long, and this would make THAT situation worse while eliminating other articles that have the ability to be much more thorough. VigilancePrime 16:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
   • • Further, if the Cylon characters are congealed into the BSG article, what is to prevent the same with regular characters? Where is the line drawn? Starbuck and Apollo also included with the main article? Tyrol perhaps? No, each character that has been significant (and I would even consider Cavil one of those) ought to have their own article. It'd be better to have a primary article with a bunch of shorter supporting articles than one single, conglomerate, oversized, uber-lengthy monster article. VigilancePrime 04:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
3. As per Dion and Vigilance. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 16:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Yes, at least with Number Three. Also, possibly with Leoben (who had a big impact on Kara's character, and is going to appear in season three as well). --DrBat 17:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
5. They should remain --SGCommand (talk • contribs) 10:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Yes. Unencyclopedic detail would include a discussion of their wardrobe. Fleshing out the characters from a notable TV series is not unencyclopedic detail. They are named characters that show up several times, as with Dr. Selar from Star Trek. Merging content into already-long articles is short-sighted at best. Remember, we are not designing for print. We're designing for the web. Captainktainer * Talk 16:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

No

1. 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)
2. I saw this matter pop up at A/NI and thought I'd pop over for a look. I don't see any reason for those to have more than a paragraph on the main page. Also looking at that Brother Calton one - if we have a category of "fictional cyborgs", do we have a category of "cyborgs"? --Charlesknight 08:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

   Carlton, Cavil? Also why should they be limited to one paragraph when they could be longer? MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 08:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

   sorry I meant Cavil. --Charlesknight 09:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

3. This is a tough one, but I think the articles for individual Cylons are not needed (besides #6 and Sharon Valerii). That level of detail should be reserved for more appropriate sites, rather than cluttering up the Wikipedia. I think that giving Number Three her own article is a bit much as well, although I can understand that the eleventy-billion Lucy Lawless fans will be upset about that. Although Number Three is to appear in a 10-episode arc, she is still only going to be a supporting character. I don't think we need articles for Cy or Scar either. I think there is enough material to create a Humanoid Cylons article to go with the main article on Cylons. -- Scjessey 12:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

   So? Ten episodes is not one episode, wikipedia is not paper.. we dont have to worry about trees you know? Are those articles physicly causing any harm? MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 12:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

   You are missing the point. My reasons for wishing to see at least some merging of all these individual Cylon articles is based on how I interpret the Wikipedia guidelines on the matter. I agree that a few of the Cylon characters are notable enough to warrant their own articles, but certainly not all of them, and definitely not those particular "models" under discussion (Aaron_Doral, Brother_Cavil, and Leoben_Conoy). Remember that perfectly acceptable articles already exist (see example) on the Battlestar Wiki, and there is no need for needless repetition. -- Scjessey 13:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

   Your interpretation of the policies is incorrect. These characters pass WP:BIO, and Wikipedia is not a paper. Dionyseus 18:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

   I've already stated the only merge i extremley oppose is Number Three. I'd accept the others but number three has a role which is prominent enough for an article. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 13:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

   I can sort of accept that Number Three will probably be worthy of a separate article, but only on the basis of future production. At the moment, the character is not notable enough to warrant a separate article. That may change as the 10-episode arc develops. -- Scjessey 13:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

   Actually at the moment there is, the fact the writers have said so warrants notability. Shes already notable as it stands so theres no reason why it needs merging for one month. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 18:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

   The fact that she actually hasn't made actual appearances in the new arc puts her character's notability squarely in the middle of "crystal-ball" territory, so until she actually appears in the actual episodes, any expanded content is going to be breathlessly reported rumors from fansites and bits of speculation gleaned from Ronald Moore interviews, handwaving about "Wikipedia is not paper! It isn't! It isn't!" notwithstanding. --Calton | Talk 00:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

1. The other thing about saying "the producers" say she will be notable in the future is that it could just be puff to talk up the show, plus the fact what if the actress get's hit by a bus and is unable to appear and they have to re-read? I agree with Calton - let's see the ACTUAL appearances and then add it in - no need to crystal ball. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Charlesknight (talk • contribs) .

Discussion

Discussion resulting from the survey would go here.

Comment: Perhaps some people have missed the point of a survey. I thought it was supposed to gather editor opinions, not as a way of identifying opponents so others can hammer on them until they change their minds. --Calton | Talk 00:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Your interpretation of the policies is incorrect. These characters pass WP:BIO...

Really? Which parts? "The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field", perhaps? "Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office"? "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events"? Pray tell, enlighten me. --Calton | Talk 00:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

They pass the "Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions" criteria of WP:BIO, as I had noted in my support vote. Dionyseus 00:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hold on that's a reference to real people - not characters, so that does not apply - there is a section in WP:BIO about fictional characters but the section you quote is not part of it. --Charlesknight 11:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

So the Cylons are "television personalities"? Showing up on the chat shows, doing guest shots on celebrity reality shows, being profiled in TV Guide? News to me. Also, since they, according to you, qualify for WP:BIO, do we also have to put the {{blp}} template on those article talk pages? Can't have libellous things said about the Cylons, don't you know, especially since they have access to more than lawyers if they get upset.

Oh, and here's the part you skipped from WP:Fiction, all of which seem to apply here:

1) Major and notable minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article.

2) Non-notable minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself, unless either becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is good practice. The list(s) should contain all characters, races, places, etc. from the work of fiction, with links to those that have their own articles.

3) It is useful to add redirects to the article page or list of minor characters, from anything that's listed in there.

4) It is often informative to include plot summaries (and other spoilers) in articles on works of fiction. However, please keep them reasonably short, as the point of Wikipedia is to describe the works, not simply summarize them. It is generally appropriate for a plot summary to remain part of the main article, not a lengthy page of its own. In some cases, sub-articles and lists are created when the potential for an encyclopedic coverage is hindered by the recommended length guidelines of one article. Please see the Making good use of Wikibooks and Wikisource section below for guidance and examples.

That last one applies to the gussied-up plot summary that make up most of the articles in question. --Calton | Talk 00:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Charles. Apparently from the 4 criteria Calton listed, these articles pass at least the first one and the second. Note the "The list(s) should contain all characters, races, places, etc. from the work of fiction, with links to those that have their own articles." from the second criteria. In other words, that list would be List_of_Battlestar_Galactica_characters, and as you can see it contains links to characters that contain their own articles. Dionyseus 01:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)