Talk:Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series)/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

January 2009 auction:Article worthy?

I didn't know if it was worth entering that they had an auction in January of many key set pieces & costumes. I thought it would be interesting to list how much everything had sold for total, as well as how much some of the more iconic pieces (Head Six's red dress & the crew's dress blues went for the most) made. I saved the results on my computer so I could compile this data if someone thinks it would be worth entering in. Not many shows have a public auction (let alone a public charity auction) like this I'm guessing that it's worth at least a few lines somewhere in the article. Most times the sets are either stored away for years, worked into other shows the company is making, or quietly sold to private collectors. I personally think that it's something to note, but my biggest question is where we would work it into the article. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Tokyogirl79

Critical Response

I added a new section on the article about the controversial Dirk Benedict article about the new series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.81.137.18 (talk) 04:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Unless someone can come up with a good reason to keep it, I'm going to yank the whole "Critical Response" section. I hardly count the jealous ramblings of a washed-up 80's actor as a "critical response" worth quoting. At any rate, the article is old news, and has been pretty much ignored by everyone for years. It was controversial for exactly as much time as it took everyone to realize how much better the new series is than the original.

If nothing else, the section needs to be seriously balanced out by all the real critical reaction, such as Time Magazine naming the show TV Show Of The Year, and for a nice counterpoint, Katie Sackhoff's reply to Dirk Benedict, when Season Two was picked up, that she's played Starbuck in more episodes (now way more episodes) than he has. But honestly I don't think it's worth the effort to keep the section.

Kutulu (talk) 02:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed! I find most of Benedict's remarks both as you characterize them, and sexist into the bargain. The article may exist, and it may be controversial in some quarters, but it adds nothing to this article, even if it is balanced up with the Time article you mention as well as the Peabody award and countless more. Get rid of it, and the sooner the better. --Drmargi (talk) 18:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest it should be included, simply because Benedict is part of the Galactica series history. (It may be "old news", but then we aren't trying to simply reflect current opinions.) However, as noted above, it doesn't warrant a standalone section. Instead, we should have positive and negative critical reaction to the new series, as well as reactions from people involved with the original - Benedict, Richard Hatch, Glen Larson etc. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It needs to stay, because it is the reaction of the original series' former star. Regardless of the content, we're here to "report" the facts, not ignore them simply because they're viewed as "jealous ramblings of a washed-up 80's actor". Let the people decide whether or not Benedict's remarks are warranted. It's not wikipedia's "job" to choose for them. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Mail Me} 20:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I just came over this. While I believe the Benedict reaction should be maintained, the section as it is seems to give undue weight. There are like seven positive reviews mentioned and one negative. Still the negative gets two paragraphs of exclusive treatment and the other get one line, in all. Maybe someone could add some more info on other reactions (I've none here, so...) Averell (talk) 10:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

BSG wikiverse section?

Does BSG have a wiki page relating to the BSG universe? With contents that include cultural references. Like how they use the word "frak" instead of "fuck" or how papers and documents don't have any corners, etc. Tidbits like these.

-G

Hi there G! Here's the link to the wikipedia BSG franchise page: Battlestar Galactica, and the link to the overall BSG project page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Battlestar Galactica. You can also always try the categories on the bottom of any article to narrow down the search some. Hope this helps! Kresock (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

New Date

According to SciFi, the first of the episodes will be on April 4, 2008. I'm not sure if it is on the website yet, however, it is in the new commercials for the series on the channel.

confirmation of this information: http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/entertainment_tv/2008/02/battlestar-ga-2.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Airpain (talk • contribs) 03:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Seasons two and three

Why are seasons two and three both considered to be season two, even though they aired as two separate seasons? So what if they were originally intended as one season, they aired separately and were distributed on DVD separately, doesn't that make it two different seasons? Further more where can I get the other half of "season 2" on DVD?

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pat1717 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

What about Lost or the Sopranos...? BSG isnt the only TV show have a mid season hiatus. Also The 2nd season was not aired in two parts in other counties. --Mercifull ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 17:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

A mid-season hiatus is not the same as an aditional season. The second half was released as 'Season 2.5' in R1, and was included with the first half for a complete 'Season 2' set in all other regions.--99.249.133.173 (talk) 00:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

BSG Podcast(s)

Is a link to a fan-produced weekly BSG discussion/review podcast (in production since episode 1.09) relevant for inclusion in the "external links" section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alight (talk • contribs) 16:12, October 30, 2006 (UTC)

According to WP:EL, fansites are generally inappropriate ("a link to one major fansite ... may be appropriate", emphasis mine). If it happens to be a site you own or maintain, it's also considered inappropriate to personally add the link to it. -- Fru1tbat 14:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Alexa Trend/Rank: 1 Month: 1,482,827 3 Month: 2,271,545

Page Views per Visit: 1 Month: 1.0 3 Month: 1.0

Hardly impressive tbh, a.k.a non notable. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm forced to agree. -- Fru1tbat 14:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what relevance the pagerank stats have. The podcast itself has over 8,000 downloads per week. After the "offical" SciFi channel podcast, it's the most popular BSG podcast available.

8,000 still aint impressive tbh.. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It's 8000x what you claimed I had. Are all your "facts" off by that much?

However it is, WP isn't a link farm. I'd bet there are a lot of sites about BSG that gets average amounts of traffic - who's going to be the judge on what the limit for introduction to WP is? Better to keep the links to the most official ones. --Strangnet 16:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Except that's not what's happening here. Battlestarwiki is a fan site and its link remains, as well as a link to a commercial site selling a BSG card game. I was merely pointing out that one of Mr. Fenton's stated reasons for deleting my link was that it "maybe gets 1 listner (sic) a week." is invalid.Alight 16:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not what he was stating. It's "pages per visit" not number of visits. The stats say the site gets 1.4million hits a month but on average each vistor only visits one page. (Rekija 01:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC))

Theological references

Although not mentioned on the main page there are many references to religious texts that the writer have used throughout the season. [[1]] Seems to pretty much outline the story. Characters and places from the Qur'an are frequently mentioned, Balthar is the Creator of Man? Some fans have suggested that the final 5 represent the 5 pillars of islam [[2]]. Not to mention the paralleles to the Mormon faith —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michaeltrs2004 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

It should be removed, the "Cylon Monotheism" section has no sources and is a clear slur against Jews, Christians and Muslims who believe in one God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.107.203.168 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 30 March 2007

In my opinion, the references are accurate. The fact that another race only believes in one god isn't any more of a slur against those religions than any other religion that only believes in one god. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 16:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

In this universe only Jews, Muslims, Christians and Cylons are monotheists. Your agenda stinks! Alucard is an Atheist, no wonder he doesnt care. This should be removed immediately.

Don't forget Zooastrians! oh, and the Baha'i! Debivort 19:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

But this article is not about this universe - it is about a fictional universe. I am sorry that you feel that my religious beliefs are germane to this article and discussion (I am not an atheist, by the way). I have tried to describe on the talk page for the other IP that you made edits for User_talk:85.107.203.168 ways in which you might be able to proceed while staying in like with Wikipedia guidelines. As you seem to feel that my "agenda" is getting in the way, I will withdraw from discussing this any further. Good luck. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 19:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's my two cents: As a Mormon I can cite some of the references. There are 12 tribes of Israel in the Bible as well as in the Book of Mormon, and there is also a lost 13th tribe that will be found in the last days described in the latter text. The planet Kobal, is obviously a reference to the planet Kolob in The Pearl of Great Price, another Mormon text. The planet Kolob is said to be the planet closest to God and is therefore what he uses to reckon and measure time, one day on Kolob being the equivalent to 1,000 years on earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 07:37, 19 May 2007 (talk • contribs)

I think that the writers were quite clever in the way they set this up. Do not try to find out which religion the Cylons or Humans represent as boths sides represent the same religions in different ways. This means that in the myriad of past religions and conflicts in our world we are bound to find countless similarities. I do not think there is a clear cut representation here, only a caricature of what fanaticism under any pretext can lead to. It is a depiction of unfair and prejudiced wars that have gone on for far too long. Julienrl 20:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Why all the excitement? This site is not about religious propaganda. It's about the content of a tv series. The cylons are portrayed as monontheist - that's a fact. If it's a fact it should be included in the article. Ever heard of freedom of speech?--Dvd-junkie (talk) 10:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

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) 11:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Supporting characters

I noticed that Sam Anders isn't listed as one of the main supporting characters. While he certainly isn't a main character, I'd suggest that he is on the level of Dee or Billy, who are both listed as supporting characters. He in involved with many plot arcs, and often has a fairly central role in them. At this point in time, he is on the "List of minor characters in Battlestar Galactica", and when he is compared to the list he feels out of place. Any comments on this?

I agree He is an important character, moreso now after what we learn in The Crossroads. (Rekija 02:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC))

He's not given the billing in the shows credits as a major character, but that could change next season. Ben W Bell talk 07:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Further to that point, keep in mind that it's not a question of what Wikipedia editors think about an actor. We might have compelling arguments for describing a character's importance - but if he/she is officially listed differently, that's what Wikipedia has to say. (What we need is to find an official cast list and work from there.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Cylon Monotheism

I have just removed a section on doubting Cylon monotheism, based on a season three discussion between Batlar and Number Three. I don't think that one discussion puts the whole premise into discussion, so would like to move it here and discuss, to see if this is pure speculation or not. I reproduced the text that I removed:

Directly contrasting these monotheistic overtones, Dr. Baltar and Number Three have a prolonged conversation in Season 3 Episode 10 pointing out the possible overlap between Cylon and Human gods starting some 3000 years prior.

Baltar: "I don't think anything it says is nonsense. The husband of the eye of the eye of the -- Hera. Hera, sometimes referred to as cow-eyed Hera. And the husband of Hera ...:

Three: "…Is Jupiter. The eye of Jupiter. Well, that's written about in the ancient texts. My God. Could their be a connection between their Gods and ours? What does it mean? "

It is important to note that Hera, in Greek mythos, is the sister and husband to Zeus, the parallel to the Roman god Jupiter.''

I'd like to make sure this is discussed before it is added again. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 12:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a section here about the capitalisation of God and gods in the DVD subtitle. This is purely demonstrating the use of proper grammar and is rather irrelevant to this article. When "gods" is used, they are referring to a collection of higher beings, whereas "God" is the name of a single higher being. ScouseMatt 17:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Should we add that there are now human believers in the Cylon god?

Suggested source material

IMO the problem is the lack of reliable sources here; even if it isn't original research it looks that way. Probably the best source available to de-OR-ify such claims is Ron Moore's podcast: en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Battlestar_Wiki:Podcast_Transcripts has an archive of all of them in easily citeable and verifiable form. For example, RDM says that "I liked the idea that the two theologies of faith, the polytheistic and the monotheistic, that they were starting to have certain points of crossover..."[3]. (If some question is raised about using a fan-wiki for sourcing, I can understand this, but I'm talking strictly about their direct transcriptions of official material, which I believe passes muster.) Eleland 13:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement which is useless:

"In the DVDs of the shows, the subtitles alternate the use of upper case and lower case "G" for Gods and gods. In general, Cylon references to divine power use an upper case "G", while human references to divine power use a lower case "g"."

    Accoring to English Grammar, God is always done with a capital, and gods is always lowercase.  The DVD case is following a common English grammar rule, why should this be noted in an encyclopedia article?  Removing the statement.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.234.220 (talk) 15:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC) 

Broadcasters/TV schedule?

I noticed a November 2006 page edit that "temporarily" removed the section on broadcasters, both syndication and first-run. Is there any particular reason this section hasn't been added back in? Also, I think I remember (although it's possible this was on another site) a list of all the international broadcasters and the translated title of the series in each corresponding language, something like the One Tree Hill page has here... I can't seem to find a list like this anywhere on the internet tonight, and I think this would be a great place for it. There doesn't appear to be any scheduling information at all on the page, so anyone wanting to know when the show is on/what channel it's on will have to find out from an external link. Maybe there's a good reason that this information isn't available here, I really don't know - but personally, I think it would add a lot to the page and that at the very least, we should say when the show's parent network airs new episodes during the season: SciFi, Sundays, 10:00pm. Am I missing something, isn't this something people will want to know? Caprica 09:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Airing information is on the Battlestar Wiki. Perhaps you can find the information you want out there? --Mercifull ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 10:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the airing information for the US/UK is on the BSG wiki. Does that mean it shouldn't be featured here as well? Unfortunately, I couldn't find a list of international broadcasters and the corresponding titles of the show in their languages. I guess it's sort of an obscure thing to want, but a lot of wiki pages for television shows have a little section like on the OTH page I linked to earlier, and I personally find it very interesting to see what the show is called in other countries. But besides that, I think it would just generally be useful for people from all around to be able to find out when and where they can watch the show, even if just via a link from the main page. But I guess I'm in the minority, so that's okay... but please let me know if you find a list similar to what I've described. It's just driving me crazy because I KNOW I saw it somewhere once before... Thanks! Caprica 07:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Number of episodes

It says 53 regular episodes and 10 webisodes, but shouldn't we consider the two episodes that made up the miniseries since they are integral to understanding the basis for the show. Or not because the series didn't officially start until the the first episode? The two miniseries episodes are under lists of episodes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Withteeth (talk • contribs) 15:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Season 4

Can someone more in the know than I am please clean up the first paragraph? Is it coming out in the 4th quarter of 2007, Feb of 2008, or after April 2008? Thanks Vdrj2 17:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

April, 2008 is the most current info. I do note though that at one point it was Jan 2008 was the plan, it then sliped to Feb and then April for half the original number with the rest to air early 2009. According to the writers strike article they finished producation of those 10 episodages to air starting in April so that date shouldn't slip any more. (By contrast the episodages to air early 2009 may be subject to more slipage if they didn't finish the scripts prior to the strike starting.) -- Jon (talk) 20:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

"Episodages"? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Post-preview update

This and related articles need a post-Razor and post-Season-4-preview update. Sci-Fi Channel (dunno about the UK station) foolishly gave away a whole lot of information in the previews shown at the end of the airing of Razor. The most salient gleaned fact of course is that Starbuck is the final Cylon. Much else was (spottily) revealed as well, though. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Batstarg.png

Image:Batstarg.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ranks in cast list?

Several editors have removed the ranks from the cast list, but an (changing) IP keeps putting them back. What say you? — Edokter • Talk • 21:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Say me... so what? Say me... revert when needed! --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [4]. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --Maniwar (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Popularity in other Countries?

I am very curious as to the success of this program in countries other than America. I ask because it seems to play on almost 100% the typical American way of thinking. An easy way to explain this would be similar to the way some people viewed Star Trek: Enterprise as Captain Archer was sort of a George W. Bush in space and reflected that mentality, I feel this program is even more so heavy handed in that regard. Somewhat similar to how I would expect if we had done 1:1 imports of The Office it would not of played as well as the US version because the differences in Culture but for this program, the differences in sociological and political views.68.226.119.187 (talk) 22:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Quite popular in Germany, especially Series 1. You can also tell by. BG is broadcasted on pay and on free TV here. DVDs are on sale too. Has features in DVD magazines. Best Science Fiction series since... Raumpatrouille. - BTW I don't see it as the typical Bush way. --Peter Eisenburger (talk) 18:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Im not saying its "Bush-esque", just in the way some felt Enterprise to be heavy handed in that regard this one feels just as if not more so heavy handed with just the general way Americans view the rest of the world.68.226.119.187 (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Star trek enterprise got canceled due to lacking syndication sales in Europe, without Sky One (in Europe)there would be no Battlestar Galactica. Markthemac (talk) 11:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking for help writing an article about the spin-offs and crossovers of this series

I am writing an article about all of the series which are in the same shared reality as this one through spin-offs and crossovers. I could use a little help expanding the article since it is currently extremely dense and a bit jumbled with some sentence structures being extremely repetitive. I would like to be able to put this article into article space soon. Any and all help in writing the article would be appreciated, even a comment or two on the talk page would help. Please give it a read through, also please do not comment here since I do not have all of the series on my watch list. - LA @ 16:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Season 3 DVDs

I just got the Season 3 DVDs and the 10 webisodes are not included. Anyone know where/when/if they may become available?MarkieAA (talk) 00:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

DC Comics

I was wondering if anyone knew of any ties (particularly sourced) between DC comics and BSG? Although it could be purely coincidental at this point, I took note that the Lay Your Burdens Down one year later jump coincided with the one year later jump for DC comics; in addition BSG just release a Last Supper promotional image for season 4, just as DC comics did this year for their summer storyline Final Crisis. Understandably neither TV nor comics has ever made claims of being completely orginal; however both pulling from similar markets, I feel inclined to believe there's a tie (or Tigh... get it?). Thoughts? -66.109.248.114 (talk) 23:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC).

God list

I notice that the recent Escape Velocity (Battlestar Galactica) mentioned Asclepius, who is not on the most common list of the Twelve Olympians, and not listed currently in this main article. Can someone detail what twelve they are actually using? Wnt (talk) 03:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

They haven't noted the 12 canonical gods, or even whether or not the main grouping of the Gods is less than (or more than) 12. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Mail Me} 12:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No non-human life forms (except dogs)?

I clearly remember one episode (S2?) where listening to bird song was a recurring theme (while dying). 84.215.159.81 (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a listing of life forms in the Re-imagined Series here. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Mail Me} 12:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

WEBISODES PAGE

What are everyone's thoughts on making a page entirely devoted to Battlestar Galactica webisodes. The main reason for this is because of the Razor flashbacks which really don't a central loaction of wikipedia and there isn't probably enough informaiton on them to write/start an article entirely devoted on them. Also, I can't remember where exactly I heard this, but Moore was interesting in making some season four webisodes (which are not the razor flashbacks might i add) so if these are done (possible during the break midseason 4) then it would be most ideal to have all of the webisodes in one place instead of creating individual (and potensially small) pages. It seems silly to have a page entirely devoted to the resistance and none of the razor flashbacks. Thoughts... Myles Trundle (talk) 12:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Are there any other episodes after "Revelations" coming this season?

If '"Revelations was the last episode of Season 4 or the end of the series forever I am very disappointed.

I cannot find news of any more episodes coming.

Help.....Anyone?

65.222.113.163 (talk) 00:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The last ten episodes of the series: 12 hours work, including the three hour series finale, will air sometime in the first quarter of 2009. The exact date is still up in the air. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Mail Me} 00:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Nominations

I added a sub-section for Nominations, I think the Emmy nominations in such categories as Writing and Directing are at least as significant as the Spacey Awards it has won... Kasnie (talk) 08:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Season articles

This article is currently quite long. There is a great deal of production information about specific seasons and webisode runs that I think could be separated out into other articles. I was thinking of following the template for Lost (season 1). Any objections?--Opark 77 (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

No, i have no real objections to this idea, i think it is a good one but being able to find enough information to write a whole page about a season would be difficult but i am ll for it! Myles Trundle (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes I object... Long articles are not bad; short attention spans are. The article should remain whole, unless you can find a wikipedia policy that forbids it. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

NEW TELEVISION MOVIE(S) ISSUE

Alright, I believe there is a new issue arising with the new television movie anouncement. This page is titled as "Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series)" and i am pretty sure that the television movie will not fit under this "umbrella" as it isn't really apart of the series per se. Here is how i see it... There is the "home page" for the rebooted BSG which is titled "Battlestar Galactica (reimagining)" givng a taste of everything to do with the reimagining whilst stemming from that page was a detailed article of the miniseries and another for the normal TV series (including seasons 1-4 and in between webisodes). So, if there is to be a bunch of television movies (there are rumours of there being more to follow) then there should be a collective "main article" for these too and even if it is the only one i don't see how it can be apart of this "TV series" page as it goes beyond that. Thoughts and feedback please... Myles Trundle (talk) 07:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: it has been moved to the actualy Battlestar Galactica page beacuse (as i said) it isn't a part of any season. Myles Trundle (talk) 05:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Technology

I don't know enough about the show but I find the technology they use to be very interesting in relation to other sceience fiction. AT times they are using old 1980s computers, tape cassetess, machine guns (instead of lasers), nukes, etc. They rarely use photography on the ships. Its interesting. Since they are not from earth i suppose this is all explainable from another world/possible world theory but if anyone who reads this thinks its warranted and wants to...please go ahead and write about the tech. -jefferyklassen august 21rst (2:$0 am...staying up late watching too much battlestar) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jefferyklassen (talk • contribs) 06:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Razor numbering...

here we go again.

Mr. IP address 195.11.9.76, you said in one of your most recent edits that Razor is not apart of Season 4 and that it is only considered a part because of the writers. will this isn't true, the producers and directors consider Razor as a part of the numbering and in addition the scifi website clearly establishes in its episode guide that Razor is the first two episodes of Season 4. In addition the UK box set of Season four (or at least the first half of Season 4) also has Razor which contradicts your statement that it was (or will) be released on DVD seperately. Doctor who often releases episodes in volumes before the final full box set and this really is no different.

there are already several discussions on BSG episode listing discussion page dealing with this issue. If you have any further issues or completely disagree with these staements please support your views with appropriate sources or references. Thank you. --Myles Trundle (talk) 06:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Actors in the 4th season / 2.Half

Are there any informations on whether all the main actors stay the same in the second half of the last episode? 85.124.178.34 (talk) 09:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Everyone will be back, they're all under contract until the end of season 4. It's possible though that one or two might be killed off at some point for story purposes.

The TV movie is a different story, new contracts had to be drawn up and not all of the cast were available. Kasnie (talk) 22:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight in Reception section

Currently the vast majority of this section is mealy the opinion of a single individual, hinged on a single source. This, per WP:UNDUE, is lending undue weight to what seems to be a minority view. It'll need to be either cut or trimmed to a passing mention. Rehevkor ✉ 18:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I trimmed it to one paragraph highlighting the core of Benedict's criticism. — Edokter • Talk • 18:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Trimmed it down a bit more. Should be o.k. now, especially since the Reception section itself was expanded. Averell (talk) 09:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Genre: Space opera

I think space opera should be added to genre in the infobox. The series has all the space opera characteristics and is included in the space opera article (with three sources verifying that it belongs).--Marcus Brute (talk) 01:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a good call. — Edokter • Talk • 02:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The Plan (TV Movie)

Guys, is "The Plan" really a part of season 4? it was made after and it wasn't in the original production order of 22 episodes. So what exactly is its classification? --Myles Trundle (talk) 04:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It is a separate production, not part of Season 4. — Edokter • Talk • 15:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Good =) --Myles Trundle (talk) 12:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, based on the commercial, it looked like "The Plan" will be a story that goes back to the beginning of the 2004 series and re-tells the events, but from the Cylon perspective. This would be very similar to how The Razor fit into the storyline. -Alex.rosenheim (talk) 19:35, 22 March 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)

Outdated before it's over?

The 70s series looks dated naturally. But the current series looks dated right now. That's because all of the characters seem to be wearing noughties fashion... they also use paper, computers like ours, and have architecture like ours, despite having space travel, and a completely different existence. This has to be the flaw in the series - their universe is too much like ours, even before they reach Earth.--MacRusgail (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't entirely see how this is a "flaw". I think your looking far too deeply into this. last time i checked we don't have any similar Cylon basestar architecture around the world and i also don't see what is quite so wrong with having some paper to write stuff on. I mean as far as i can gather from what you have written, you are saying that BSG isn't futuristic enough for you - but how do you define something as being "futuristic"? I mean back in the 60's people would have thought that by the year 2000 we would be living on mars, have created with robotic beings and that everyone would own flying cars. Clearly we haven't advanced that far as to make those things common place. the point of this example is that the future isn't always going to be as different as we think it will be. When saying this, i am under the assumption you are talking about technology etc and if you also mean that humanity is not "futuristic" enough then i would also disagree. A man would run from a charging elephant 4 thousand years ago and a human would run form a charging elephant in 4000 years time (assuming they aren't extinct). In other words, there are certain things about humans which can never evolve or change - our primal identity as a species. and a final point, science fiction isn't necessarily about being futuristic but it instead is meant to reflect society back at itself in a new light. for example, BSG has dealt with issues like suicide bombing, biological warfare and genocide. All these things(and more) are being played back to us from a different angle allowing us to take a fresh perspective on something which we have often just taken for granted as being "bad" or "good". No matter what our opinions i think we can still agree that it is a fraking awesome show and that is what really matters =) --Myles Trundle (talk) 11:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Flag icons

Having witnesses an ugly edit-war over using flags in the infobox not too long ago, I have protected the page for 24 hours. Multiple projects have different guidelines regarding the use of flags, often conflicting. Please work it out here. — Edokter • Talk • 19:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

MOS:ICON seems to be in flux and a bit of a mess right now, I'd made the decision to leave it be until it settles down a bit. But the reason I reverted was that I see no reason to have the icon there beyond decoration, which is "discouraged". I wouldn't call a handful of reverts an edit war though :P Rehevkor ✉ 19:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

For an ugly edit war, not much was written on the talk page about it. I can find no mention of flag use in the infobox on this page or on any of the archived pages. Can anyone point me to the prior discussion? And full page protection is a bit much when no single editor had reverted more than once and only a total of four editors had done anything on the flag. Instead we are stuck with ugly bare references that I now cannot fix... :( --2008Olympian^chitchat 19:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The edit war in question was on Torchwood a while back, not here. — Edokter • Talk • 20:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

How'd that turn out? I don't see a flag on the article, but then I don't see anything on the talk page. Rehevkor ✉ 20:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It stopped after I threatened to block the next one te revert. See the articles's history here, scroll down to around May 4th 2008. — Edokter • Talk • 20:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

scenery in final scenes of Finale

I'm from BC and was watching the landscape closely for the "big green space" of what was supposed to be primeval Tanzania in the 2-hr finale episode. I caught glimpess of drier country in the deeper valleys, and certain distant mountains, though no real peaks. At first, given the grove of birch and the general lay of it, I thought Merritt-Aspen Grove area, or up at Douglas Lake, where there'd be a hotel/ranch cabins and road access for crew and cast; I've not rambled up in that area so what certain summits - mostly plateau-summits not regular peaks - would look like, but it was tricky; saw some bluffs that might fit that area more than, say, the Kamloops Plateau (NW of Kamloops). Another possibility, given needed road access and nearby accommodations, was the Hat Creek valley, west of Cache Creek....could also have been up around 100 Mile House or high up around Clinton somewhere; some of the mountains in the distance reminded me of teh Marble Range but that could just as easily have been Tahaetkun (above Kelowna/Summerland). Wherever it was, it was high up, there's a certain look to the vegetation and you could see the drier/hotter country below in some shots.....reason I'm going on about this is List of filming locations in the BC Interior. If any cast, crew or production office people are reading this, and can fill in that blank, please do so, either here or on the film lcoations list . Me, I'm just curious. There's only so far offroad you can get a crew without even bigger bucks than usual. My guess is Merritt, 'cause it's closest (to Vancouver), and if so, compliments on hiding the desert-look of the lower valleys around there.....Skookum1 (talk) 03:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Poetic Ring (Series As the Opening and Closing of A Circle)

I'm removing this whole section. Not only is it OR, but it was lifted wholesale from the Battlestar Wiki[5]. Perhaps a discussion on the themes of the show can be found in reliable sources, but a wiki isn't among them. SixFourThree (talk) 19:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)SixFourThree

~~What's OR? Also, every word was a statement of fact about an obvious, well established detail in the series. Isn't it all public domain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.98.245.197 (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

OR is Original Research. Basically the rule is that if the information isn't published in a mainstream publication or source, then it shouldn't be included here. Another Wiki isn't exactly a reliable source, especially since there is was quite clearly original research. If you can find that list of themes discussed in a mainstream publication, then it can be included here somewhere (although I'd still take issue with the placement). And while you're at it, you should probably sign your posts on the discussion pages. SixFourThree (talk) 19:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)SixFourThree

Some citation info to get rid of some citation needed flags

"Moore infamously explained in the episode podcasts for season 1 that literally the only time Sci-Fi Channel asked him to change something in the first two seasons, was early in production when they were a bit uneasy about the extremely dark tone of the series, and asked if Moore could insert some lighter material, such as everyone having a birthday party for someone.[citation needed] The result was that Moore sarcastically inserted a scene into the beginning of the fourth episode, "Act of Contrition", in which a number of pilots are celebrating a Raptor pilot's 1,000th landing when a munition accidentally discharges, killing and injuring a number of crewmen. Moore said that Sci-Fi Channel responded by saying, "We get it," and never tried to interfere in the running of the series again.[citation needed]"

These citations come from the podcast of the Season 1 Episode "Act of Contrition." It is the fourth episode of the first season. Moore mentions this in the first few mintutes of the podcast.

I'm not adding the citation flags because I'm not too familiar with the coding / formatting, but I'm absolutely positive that this is where this information comes from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.100.129.195 (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Some citation needed flags

"After the initial five episode long New Caprica story arc, Season Three consisted of mostly stand-alone episodes. In the podcast for the Season Three finale, Ron Moore stated that in an effort to attract new viewers, the Sci-Fi Channel pressured the production team to make stand-alone episodes, instead of focusing on previously established storylines. However, this met with a negative critical reception, and Moore stated that by the end of Season Three, the critical reaction and declining ratings following this paradigm shift forced the Sci-Fi Channel to admit that stand-alone episodes simply do not work in the format that the series has established for itself, and Moore went on to say that because of this the Sci-Fi Channel promised that it would not put any pressure to make stand-alone episodes in Season Four.[12]"

I have listened to the podcast for the season 3 finale recently, and I remember no such discussion taking place in either version of the podcast. I'm not going to delete this information because I am not absolutely sure that it is an unverified claim, but I remember seeing this information on Wikipedia BEFORE I ever listened to the Season 3 finale Podcast, and I remember listening for that specific discussion during the podcast because I was interested in hearing it directly from Moore's mouth. I do not remember ever hearing him say anything disparaging about Sci Fi at all during the podcast, much less him saying that their interference was part of the reason for the weak episodes in the back half of season 3. In fact, the only discussion I remember of the sort was him rehashing some stuff he said during the Lay Down Your Burdens podcast, mostly concerning the fact that a 20 episode season is much more difficult to do than a 13 episode season.

In addition, the citation format is completely wrong. It just says "Season 3 Finale Podcast." It should at least mention the episodes title (Crossroads, Part II) and production number (320).

I'm not making this edit myself because I'm not too familiar with wikipedia formatting and I do not have an account. I also posted the talk topic above this.

- Tighclops —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.100.129.195 (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion

Just as a heads-up in case anyone has missed it: Currently there´s an ongoing discussion in Talk:Battlestar Galactica (reimagining) about whether to merge this and the other article to reduce redundancy and improve clarity. --Lennier1 (talk) 00:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Information in need of sources

• The new Battlestar Galactica departs from the original in several ways. In terms of style and storytelling, it rejects the traditional televised science fiction styles of Star Trek (after which the original Battlestar Galactica series was conceived) in favor of what executive producer Ronald D. Moore calls "naturalistic science fiction." The new series emphasizes character drama in an edgy survivalist setting and has many of the characteristics of military science fiction, shedding the light-hearted action/adventure style of the original show. Among plot differences, the key characters of Starbuck and Boomer have been recast as female roles. The Cylons are the creation of man and a new breed of Cylon models now imitate humanoid appearance down to the cellular level.

• Ronald D. Moore tackled the reimagining with realism in mind, portraying the shows' heroes as being part of a "flawed" humanity, and drawing inspiration from the September 11, 2001 attacks and their aftermath. In the reimagined series, many characters struggle with deep personal flaws; for example, Adama and his son have a profoundly dysfunctional relationship, while Colonel Tigh is an alcoholic. Their enemy is capable of living among them unnoticed and willing to carry out suicide attacks, allowing an exploration of moral and ethical issues brought up by the War on Terrorism. The show has dealt with Cylon and human suicide bombers, the torture of prisoners, humanity's implication in the colonization and enslavement of other intelligent beings, and the struggles motivated by intense religious differences. To add to this realism, the creative direction also redesigned Galactica with a decidedly 'retro' submarine look, approximating the function of an aircraft carrier, using bullets, missiles and nuclear weapons instead of directed-energy weapons such as lasers.

• The first production to be set in the reimagined universe was the miniseries first broadcast on the Sci Fi Channel on December 8, 2003. From that followed a regular television series which premiered on Sky One in the UK and Ireland on October 18, 2004 and on Sci Fi Channel in the United States on January 14, 2005. A spin-off prequel series called Caprica has been announced and a DVD movie has been produced.

• In other media, the filmed series has spawned a 2006 comic book series by Dynamite Entertainment and a video game for Xbox Live Arcade and Microsoft Windows, released in Fall 2007.

• In 2007, Battlestar Galactica was nominated for four Primetime Emmy Awards: Outstanding Directing for a Drama Series, Outstanding Sound Editing and Outstanding Special Visual Effects for a Series for the third season episode titled "Exodus, part 2" and a single nomination for Outstanding Writing in a Drama Series for the back to back episodes "Occupation" and "Precipice".

• In 2008, it again received the Outstanding Special Visual Effects for a Series award for the fourth season opener "He That Believeth in Me". The Razor Flashback webisodes also won the Short Format Live-Action Entertainment Program award and the show received another Emmy nomination for Outstanding Writing in a Drama Series.

• The American Film Institute named the show to its list of the ten best shows on television. Other mainstream publications such as the Chicago Tribune, Rolling Stone magazine, and Newsday also named the series one of the best on television for 2005. That same year, the series won a prestigious Peabody Award in recognition of its creative excellence.

• All Battlestar Galactica episodes including the miniseries were later added to iTunes in September 2008 in SD and HD formats, and the first Season 4 episode (He That Believeth In Me) being free. All season four episodes are available for viewing at Amazon.com. In June 2008, the previous 3 aired episodes are also available for viewing on Hulu.com.

• Downloadable podcast commentaries for some episodes of season one and most episodes of season two and three are also available via iTunes and SciFi.com. SciFi.com also usually has the latest episode available for viewing on the website. Episodes are also available at Amazon Unbox. Effective July 2008, Battlestar Galactica Seasons 1-3 (and subsequently a portion of the aired Season 4 episodes) are available for download on Xbox Live's Video Store.

Please help find a source for this information, which was on the reimaginning page when it was merged here. Thank you.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The 2008 VFX Emmy is one of the references that was omitted when merging the other article with this one. Unfortunately i haven´t yet found a reliable source for the last part although it´s common knowledge in the industry and therefore there has to be some.
Here´s the section in question (in this case it´s the 2nd reference):

The special effects of the miniseries were created by Zoic Studios who previously worked on the Firefly television series. The regular series also contains effects by Atmosphere Studios , Enigma Animation Productions and the production´s own effects team although near the end all visual effects were done by the in-house team.

--Lennier1 (talk) 19:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Criticism???

This entire entry looks as if it was written by SyFy's publicity department. There are factual inaccuracies (i.e. BSG was NOT a ratings success and indeed, was almost cancelled on more than one occasion due to low ratings. This entry should be factual and should not read like the mission statement for a film or TV show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.117.49 (talk) 08:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't there any public criticism about the overall Galactica plot and notions? I mean, I watched all episodes now, and found it to be well executed and mostly entertaining... But the message, compared to e.g. Star Trek, simply is an extremely conservative one. This whole untouchable clique of military leaders, getting heavily drunk and making decisions about humanitys future, often based on mysticism and random personal notions? I can't be the only one who noticed that? -- 217.186.222.19 (talk) 19:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

they thought it was good because it was based on "realism". I'm not sure what's realistic about an advanced space-faring culture parking itself on a primitve planet and destroying every bit of its technology including its entire fleet of spaceships. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, if anything was published on this topic, then add it to the article. If not it's moot discussing it here. Averell (talk) 20:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

There are countless public websites and forums all over the net crammed with complaints by fans who didn't like the show's plot, themes and ending and thought it should all have been done differently. These forums are easy to find and easy to contribute to. There are also countless websites and forums filled with praise from fans who thought the same elements of the show were just great. But Wikipedia is not a forum - it's a place for recording factual, verifiable information, and should only include opinion if the opinion is of particular significance or from someone particularly notable; in which case, as Averell says, it just needs to be properly cited. - Laterensis (talk) 21:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

That this show is so popular just shows how little good science fiction is available on television. 99% of the rest of the crud they show on the "SyFy" channel makes BG shine like a diamond when it's really just a rhinestone. Years from now people will say "what were they thinking?" when they look at today's reviews and comments about BG.

As Twain said, the majority is always wrong, the minority is always right. Such is the case with BG. The reason so many people like it isn't because it's innovative groundbreaking brilliant storytelling and drama. It's because it is lowest common denominator rehash dressed up with dysfunctional characters, self-important delivery of political and theological drivel, bad sex scenes and annoying camerawork.71.112.38.38 (talk) 07:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Or, to put it another way, you don't like the show and you're annoyed that everyone doesn't agree with you? Look, the heading of this section, 'Criticism', really isn't supposed to be an invitation for you to add your feelings about the programme. This isn't a review site. There are plenty of forums and groups where you can do that to your heart's content. Here we're interested in verifiable facts about BSG. And these can include criticisms, of course, but the criticisms would need to be from notable sources, with cites provided.

(And if Twain ever really made the comment you've attributed to him here, and wasn't being satirical, then he's gone down a little in my estimation. I couldn't trust anyone who'd take such a dogmatic position.) - Laterensis (talk) 07:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Twain actually said "whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform". I think they're slightly misquoting Henrik Ibsen "The majority is always wrong; the minority is rarely right". Pointless pedantry strikes again Doc Meroe (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

some argue that BSG makes no sense being a clone to startrek i agree with them. it is basically "days of our lives" star trek and somehow they didn't cure cancer with all that technologically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.159.181.74 (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Hate to say it, but I really gotta agree with the opinion that the show felt like a glorified soap opera. It barely felt like a science fiction series at all, which given SyFy's current opinion of the genre, is probably what they intended all along. It also brought back horrific memories of what happened with Neon Genesis and the overuse of religious undertones and similarities. They may as well have called it anything because it never really felt like a re-imagining of the original show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.197.138.115 (talk) 02:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I remember watching this show; it felt more like sci-fi than virtually any other live action show at the time. The grittiness, somber tone, paranoia and outer space graphics all made for a watchable show. But then some scheduling idiot moved it to 2-late p.m. on Sundays. Guess I need a TiVo...—RJH (talk) 20:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

# seasons planned?

Quick question: was 4 the number of seasons originally planned, or was the original number reduced at a later time (e.g. Babylon 5, Farscape, Enterprise)? SharkD (talk) 12:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Channel

Should "original channel" be changed from Sci Fi to Syfy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.89.71.155 (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Technical Data

In an earlier version of the wiki article I had added a Technical Data section, because it struck me as odd that the article talks about a big, important TV series, but doesn't even mention how long the series is.

However, somebody deleted that section again (following the current global trend never to reveal technical data about anything).

Now I'm wondering what others think about this. Do we really want to conceal the most basic information about the entire TV series? Strikes me as similar to explaining a new type of car without mentioning how many seats, doors, and kW of power it has. —Hgmichna (talk) 16:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Um, it seems to me that the infobox (and the infoboxes on the miniseries, webisodes, ...) contain all relevant data like image format, episode length and whatnot. It does say how long the series is. I don't see any particular reason to add another section for that. Averell (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to move

My proposal is to move the current article to Battlestar Galactica (Re-imagined Series). The reasons that justify the move are:

• The series actually spans several years, therefore the current reference to 2004 is misleading
• The series is commonly known by fans as "Re-imagined" (for example, in Battlestar Wiki)

Please discuss here if there is any opposition to this move. Thanks! --jofframes 15:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdemarcos (talk • contribs)

The page has been restored to the title "Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series)". While there has been no comment regarding the proposal, it is important to note that there was extensive discussion regarding the proper page title during the merger discussion at Talk:Battlestar Galactica (reimagining)/Archive 2#Merge same topic, the consensus of which was to use this page name per the naming conventions. As well, I would note that this is the second time the page has been moved by the same editor, contrary to the established consensus. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The page has been moved back. The current title was decided upon after discussion (found in the archive). Specifying the year is a common disambiguation method, where the year denotes the the year series premieres. Also, your capitalisation was not correct; "series" should not be capitalised. — Edokter • Talk • 17:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Consensus with one reference?

In the section References to modern society, the following sentence appears:

There is a consensus that with "its third season, the show has morphed into a stinging allegorical critique of America’s three-year occupation of Iraq

It has a single reference that supports the notion of the show being an allegory to this event, but does one source represent a "consensus"? The final paragraph of the same section quotes one of the show;s producers as saying events in the show can be as generically applied to other situations. This is also stated earlier in the sections that this could be applied to other situations. I don't object to this interpretation appearing in the article, but I am not so sure that it is the consensus view. If it is, it should be more soundly supported as such. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Analysis at end of "Plot" section

Over the past few days, Evans1982 and I have been going back and forth regarding text at the end of the "Plot" section. It was originally in the section as:

"Consequently, the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica is a myth of origin for modern Homo Sapiens, taking place in our collective pre-historic past rather than future history. "

Evans1982 changed it to the following, which (I feel) extended an already unreferenced analysis:

"Consequently, the revelation that the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica took place more than 150,000 years in the past means that unlike most space opera science fiction stories, the series was a tale of ancient history rather than future history and serves as a myth of origin for modern humanity. "

and its most recent incarnation was:

"Consequently, the revelation that the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica took place more than 150,000 years in the past means that the series was a space opera science fiction tale of ancient history rather than future history and serves as a fictional tale of origin for modern humanity."

I have several problems with the text, not the least of which is that it reads as an opinion, similar to what one might find on a fan site such as the Battlestar wiki. (Not surprisingly, Evans1982 has informed me that he was the one who added similar text there.) My contention is that this text a) needs a source from a critic so that it is not Wikipedia making the analysis, and b) needs to be somewhere other than the tail end of the plot section if used at all. Given that the two of us haven't been able to resolve this, I think it is time to bring the text here and get additional input. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, Evans1982 has immediately reverted it back in. This needs additional input please. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not an opinion piece at all. It's an observation! The series took place 150,000 years in the past and therefore was a tale of ancient history. That's a fact! Seriously, Ckatz. I'm not trying to be difficult, but something is genuinely wrong with you, if you believe that stating a fact constitutes giving an opinion. -- Evans1982 (talk) 18:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It reads as original research, it needs a citation or it should be reworded. I know you're stating it as a fact but it's a fact you came to, therefore it needs a source. (Deftonesderrick (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC))

Okay, rereading the whole last paragraph and not just the last sentence from the end, it doesn't read as original research as much. Although, I think a source that helps confirm everything (it being in the our actual Times Square and our Earth, not some alternate Earth) would help avoid problems like this in the future. (Deftonesderrick (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC))

I think it's mostly the wording (the train of logic and flowery prose) that makes it sound like OR. "consequently" "means that" "was a tale of" "serves as myth of ...". Couldn't this all be said much more succinctly as "Given the setting of the series 150,000 years in the past, it is unusual among science-fiction works, most of which are set in the future." de Bivort 19:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that sounds better. Anyone else have a thought? (Deftonesderrick (talk) 23:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC))

Again, and not to nit-pick, but shouldn't we have someone authoritative make the analysis? After all, if we say BSG is unusual because it is set in the past, wouldn't that mean we are also describing works such as Star Wars are "unusual"? ("A long time ago...") --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

per the verifiability policy the entire sentence should be struck, unless it is properly referenced. Otherwise, it remains an opinion that most science fiction works are set in the future. There are plenty of works which have contemporary settings (to the time they are written/filmed). LonelyBeacon (talk) 07:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The sentence makes no claim that most science fiction works are set in the future. It's an observation that most space opera science fiction works are set in the future. Perhaps, some people here need to look up "space opera." -- Evans1982 (talk) 14:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the thing we're trying to get across here is, well, read your own statement above... that's your research/knowledge of the subject, not a reliable cited source. Therefore the sentence would fall into the same category. (Deftonesderrick (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC))

The articles Space opera and Science fiction have multiple references indicating that said stories tend to happen in the future. And to be frank, this borders on common knowledge not needing a source. We don't need to source the statement that historical fiction is set in the past - it's definitional. Personally, I would restore the sentence, but frankly this kind of wikilawyering reduces my enthusiasm to work on articles, so I'll leave it up to you all. de Bivort 05:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Episode list redesign

Want to some feedback on this episodes list redesign I have made in order to let the episode list better match other DVD shows like List of Stargate SG-1 episodes or List of Lost episodes. Also need to add Blu-ray releases, but not sure which release date to include. Would appreicate any feedback you can give me. Its located here User:Mollsmolyneux/Sandbox/BSG Episode List. Thanks --Mollsmolyneux (talk) 13:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Prose

I've tidied a few items of infelicitous prose and removed a few mad commas but many of the quotes from critics are illiterate, are there any with a closer relation to English?Keith-264 (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Sanitized

The lack of a single reference to Mormonism (including certain esoteric fringe futurism beliefs within it that go way back) in the entire article smacks of it having been thoroughly sanitized. The series' central origin and obvious continuing lineage is not as simple as just re-arranging the letters to Kobol. It's rather disturbing, really, that it's been totally pushed off into another article and stripped way down even there. At least once it needs to be brought up here. I'm not even a practicing Mormon myself, but I know the contributors should be ashamed of that obviously intentional, bigoted, and intellectually deceptive decision. Any TV series subject with even passing roots in Catholicism or Zen or The Occult (colloquial) wouldn't be treated like that. -Reticuli 64.93.132.79 (talk) 08:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources to support that, please present them. Unfortunately, we cannot use editor opinion as a basis for content. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Related requested move

Hi, just wondering if some editors who are familiar with this TV series could add their opinions to the requested move at Talk:List of minor characters in Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series)#Requested move. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 07:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Modern-day references

This article already includes a detailed discussion of story elements that are based upon "real world" events. However I believe there has also been discussion over the fact that other "real world" elements have also appeared, such as the design of Caprica City and other locations looking identical to what we know from Earth cities today - including traffic lights, bars, types of drinks, music, etc. - including the use of a known 20th century song, All Along the Watchtower as a plot element. There was also an episode in which Adama is shown holding an undisguised Readers Digest Condensed Book volume, and the skyline of Caprica has recognizable corporate logos. Far from being errors, or cases of viewers looking too closely at sets and props, I think it's been mentioned that this was all apparently intentional (possibly foreshadowing the events of the finale, or the suggestion that "our" Earth was the one depicted as being destroyed centuries in the past). It's obviously OR to go into this just off the cuff, but I think there was even a term used to describe this sort of SF storytelling... 68.146.80.110 (talk) 18:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Mitochondrial eve

There is a move to remove the mention of Hera Agathon from the Mitochondrial eve article. I've found a source, namely, Patrick Di Justo and Kevin Grazier, The Science of Battlestar Galactica, ISBN 0-470-39909-0, pages 59-61, but if anyone has any more they would be appreciated. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 18:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The Galactica and the Fleet

I didn't want to remove it entirely without discussion. The section is a bit excessive for the main article. There's an article for the ship itself, where I think any information that already isn't present in that article could be put there. Thoughts? Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Amadscientist (talk · contribs) 04:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Before conducting an extensive review, and after ensuring you are viewing an unvandalized version, check the article and its edit history for the following basic problems which are sometimes found in GA nominations.

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability. Done
2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.  Done
3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{fact}}, {{citation needed}}, {{clarifyme}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}.)  Done
4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.  Done
5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.  Done

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Reasonably well written	Pass
(b) (MoS)	Seems to adhere to main points of MOS.	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	Large chunks of article with no references.	Fail
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	sources appear reliable.	Pass
(c) (original research)	I am concerned that the amount of unsourced information could be OR.	Fail

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The major aspects are there and even some of the fan based speculation, but the latter is the main problem. Too broad in coverage with no references.	Fail
(b) (focused)	Uhm....it needs a lot of work on focus. I am not sure the direction being used for the theological comparison works for this article and is based on an article with multiple issues. Really need to loose that whole allusions section. Perhaps best to stick to themes and use inline citations.	WTF!?

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
I don't see major issues with the general neutrality of the prose and the way things sre presented. Seems reasonably encyclopedic. Concerned that the overall neutrality of subject has strayed with unsourced speculation.	Fail

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
Stable.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	NA-No images to tag.	Undetermined
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	NA-No images. Would not fail over it, but could use at least a Fair use screen cap.	Undetermined

Result

Result	Notes
Fail	At this time I feel the article still needs a good deal of work. It could use a screen cap but the fact that the article had no images is not part of the decision. There needs to be a good copy edit and removal of a large portion of content, references need to be located and added etc.. For this reason the article is not being put on hold.

References

Country of Origin

There seems to be a persistent need to list BSG's country of origin as CAN/USA/UK. I would submit this is entirely WP:POV or WP:OR (depending on how you look at it), with no foundation. BSG is an American production, made and copyrighted by an American company (Universal Network Television). My source? The credits, which I'm looking at right now. Country of first publication: USA. Network ordering the production: SciFi (SyFy), and American network owned by NBC. Country of legal ownership (i.e. laws governing protection of the copyright, etc.) USA. R&D TV is also an American company. Yes, there was limited British money funding the first season. That doesn't make it a British show, any more than the American money coming from BBC America or PBS makes any number of British shows from Prime Suspect to Robin Hood American. Hired studio space, etc. in Canada doesn't make the show Canadian, any more than it does a good few other shows shot in Canada. Drmargi (talk) 05:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately it´s not complerely true. The show wouldn´t have been possible withut financing from British SKY One. And part of the deal is why many episodes were first aired there instead of the US. --Lennier1 (talk) 18:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

TV, like film, is generally classed by the country of the production company. So BSG would be US. Yes it's filmed in Canada, and made with some money from the UK, but the company that made it was American. Everything else isn't official to the country of a TV series, just like it's not to a film. Distribution company, country of finance, country of filming, country of editing, actor nationality, director nationality etc are irrelevant, it's all down to the country of the production company. Canterbury Tail talk 18:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Precisely my point. It's not unusual for shows to have overseas financing as part of their production deals. A good few British shows have financing from American networks (PBS, BBC America, etc.) as I noted above, but that doesn't make them American series. Compared to the contribution of NBC Universal and the usual revenue stream for an American series, Sky's contribution was comparatively small and of comparatively short duration. There's simply no justification for describing this series as anything but American. Drmargi (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The show is actually partially funded by money from Canada, Canadian Space Channel. So it is a multi-country production. That's why there are so many Canadian actors, as well as British actors, as this was part of the deal with Sky TV (Baltar & Apollo are played by Brit actors. I'm amazed that if you two are actually fans of the show and the values it espouses, you still can't look beyond your American sense of nationalistic pride and patriotism and embrace this as an international show.

Ok, just one sec - Universal Studios is partially owned by Vivendy Entertainment, which is a French company. So, if the production company (Universal Studios) is partially-French owned, and it goes by the production company, then it should be USA/FRANCE. How bout Sony? Mostly Japanese-owned. So Sony movies should say "JAPAN?" Pretty dumb guys. --70.68.172.77 (talk) 03:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Reread above. Country of funding is irrelevant -- see the note re: PBS/BBCAmerica participation in British shows. The show has Canadian actors and Canadian crew because that's what Canadian labor laws require of US productions made in Canada. There is a difference between funding and licensing a show for broadcast. Do you even have a source for any Canadian funding? Hired studio space and crew do not make a show Canadian.

As for ownership of the production company and origins of cast, by the logic in the two comments above, every production made by a company that has some ownership in another country would be a join production, right? Want to try to disentangle that one? Sorry, no dice. BSG is owned and produced by Universal Network Television which operates and is incorporated in the US. They hold the copyright to the show and its distribution rights, and license any and all reproduction stemming from it (i.e. DVD's, merchandise, etc.). Whatever small ownership role Vivendi (correct spelling) has only serves to make Vivendi a multi-national, not BSG a French production. And PUH-LEEZE. Since when did cast nationality have anything to do with the country of ownership of a production? By that logic, ER was a US/Croatian production because Goran Visnjic, who played Dr. Luka Kovac, was Croatian. Sorry, that one doesn't pass the laugh test. I'll say this for you both, the arguments you put forth are so thin, they simply serve to reinforce mine. And the only nationalism on display here is on the part of editors trying to claim what is patently an American production for their own. Drmargi (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm reverting 24.150.185.254's edit regarding country. Canterbury Tail's edit was correct regarding standard TV production company classifications. Whether someone feels that other countries involved in production of a tv show should be recognized is a valid concern, but one beyond the scope of this article or talk page. After all, we wouldn't change Law and Order : UK's page to say its an American - British show simply because NBC has a hand in it. Like other articles, we use the standard until the standard changes, then everyone uses the new standard. Astraeos (talk) 04:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You should not have done that without debate, wiki best practice demands that it is the country that funds a production that defines ownership otherwise many of the recent Hollywood films would all be listed as 'British', (Guardians of the Galaxy, Fury, World War Z, Star Wars, the list is endless) which were all made in the UK by British production companies. Twobells (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Two problems: a. cite the policy and; b. practice for film does not by default apply to television. The edit you're challenging has been in place for five years. By any standard, that's consensus. Please refrain from POV-pushing, and discuss/gain consensus for the change you want to make. --Drmargi (talk) 17:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

You are getting desperate now, 'film doesn't apply to tv'? Of course it does as far as legitimate citations are concerned. As for challenging an incorrect description that is my right as a Wikipedia editor irrespective of how long it has been there, once I added my view earlier in December we had consensus in favour of factual reality; in that BTG was a British-American co-production. Twobells (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

US/UK co-production revisited

Some (Redacted) editor has proceeded to erase the British co-financing element of the article, subsequently, I've re-added that fact and removed 'American' from the first paragraph as according to best wiki practice you don't mash names together, rather an editor must list the countries that finance a production in the infobox, I thank you. Twobells (talk) 22:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Sigh, someone keeps trying to remove the UK co production details from the article, they are currently involved in edit warring stating that I cannot use IMDB when I can, please see , its getting desperate now, their only last hope on removing the fact that the UK financed BTG is riding on decrying IMDB Pro, its a farce especially considering the production credits were added by Universal. Also added citation from the book Transnational Television Drama: Special Relations and Mutual Influence … By Elke Weissmann Twobells (talk) 16:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Please cite the policy that states that precedence goes to funding nation over production company. Darned if I can find it. The established practice in the industry is that the nation of first ownership, as listed in the credits, is the nation of the production company, and that's the United States of America, in which NBC Universal is incorporated. Limited financial participation in one season of BSG does not make a five season television program British by any stretch of the imagination. IMDB and TV.com are fan submitted, and do minimal fact checking. Can you provide evidence that the production company, rather than a fan submitted the UK data point, much less when? You're assuming the production company made a submission with no evidence to support that assumption. Moreover, the essay (note: essay, not policy) you cite does not specifically address the use of production company data, just data submitted by the WGA and MPAA, so you're wide of the mark.

Another editor cites standing consensus for the American designation, which is accurate. When an edit goes unchallenged long enough, it is considered to have consensus. Moreover, when an edit is under challenge, the article remains at status quo until new consensus is established; an editor with your experience should know that. Therefore the burden is on you to gain consensus for the change, something you do not at present have. Your edits are becoming disruptive, and you are bordering on edit warring. Please discuss and work toward consensus, rather than continuing to push an edit that appears to represent a personal agenda. --Drmargi (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Can I ask exactly what your problem is with adding the fact that BTG is a co-production? So far we've had one editor try and revert my edit for 'its been American for a long time', even though I have added legitimate cites, then another editor stated that one of the cites, IMDB PRO is not a legitimate source even though IMDP Pro is only for professional industry insiders with all edits and additions monitored by media professionals. In the case of this particular IMDB Pro citation Universal added the production credit; Wikipedia states that you can use IMDB citations anyway as long as they are WGA and the site has absolutely no policy on IMDB Pro. Finally when I add a very strong legitimate book reference my edit is reverted once again with the reason that consensus was not reached; however, that statement is incorrect because once I had joined the debate early in December and voted consensus favoured factual reality as reflected by the legitimate citations. In closing, any further attempt at reverting legitimate citations will be referred to admin. Twobells (talk) 22:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

This is getting silly now, I warn editors about edit warring on their talk pages and lo and behold hours later one appears on my talk page even though I initiated the warning, please stop being so juvenile. Twobells (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

What consensus are you talking about? You act like there's been a new discussion with everyone in your favor, I don't see it. You said (in your edit summaries), "Nothing TO discuss, consensus was reached in favour back in early December"—what are you referring to? Same goes for "I have added up the votes and there is consensus"—what? You responded to someone up above from a post from five years ago; the article for as long as I've edited it (several years) has simply been labeled as American (there's even a hidden note in the infobox). You can't just come along, ignoring consensus and push your version of the article. Feel free to add to the body of the article that Sky One helped financed the first season, however, the country of origin is strictly the U.S. Leave the article at status quo. You're just being disruptive. Drovethrughosts (talk) 23:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

And consensus is not a vote. You can huff and puff all you want, but your sources aren't reliable, or in some cases, even accessible. You really, really need to stop before you're blocked. --Drmargi (talk) 23:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

You have both been reported for removing legitimate citations which on Wikipedia is completely unacceptable. I warned you both that you were involved in edit warring and was ignored and my warnings removed. Twobells (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

You were edit warring as well, it doesn't just go one way. And, seriously, I want to know—what are you talking about and/or referring to when you said "Nothing TO discuss, consensus was reached in favour back in early December" and "I have added up the votes and there is consensus". You can't just make stuff up. Drovethrughosts (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

With respect, I was putting right your unsubstantiated reversions which deleted legitimate citations. How anyone can say that expert reference material available on Google Books is 'unreliable' stinks of circumvention and pov. As for a 'new consensus' I don't understand what you mean? I collated the views regarding the fact that BSG was an international co-production, calculated the number and it was in favour of adding that the UK (via SKY) has a production credit for the show, I laid that out in the thread and acted accordingly, much later my edits were reverted for no reason, when I reverted the reversion you made a number of excuses increasingly desperate as to why the citations should not be added. Twobells (talk) 00:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm looking at the end credits of the first episode right now, and it states "Country of first publication: United States of America" and below "©2004 USA Cable Productions LLC"—which confirms its country of origin per the Berne Convention (read here) (which this work is copyrighted under). It was partly (as in, not the entire series) produced in association with Sky, I don't think that warrants the UK being the "country of origin". Drovethrughosts (talk) 00:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

With great respect your episode version will say that due to your location, that is standard industry practice. Anyway, the issue is currently under investigation and you will be notified forthwith. Twobells (talk) 09:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, with great respect, your assumption is incorrect. With some more research, I've confirmed the source of episode is from a region 2 DVD (the video's resolution is 576x320 and the FPS is 25, which is PAL). Screencaps for proof and verification: [6] [7]. So yeah, copyright does not change nor would it. Universal Television is the copyright holder of BSG, thus the sole country of origin is the United States. Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

You still don't get it, the country of first publication was the United Kingdom on October 18th 2004 not the USA and for the record PAL resolution is 768/576 not 576x320, 576x320 is usually used by software pirates when re-sizing authentic dvds. Also, the USA publication was much later in January 2005 (14th) so your video 'evidence' makes no sense whatsoever. Look you cannot keep legitimate citations of the page, administration has stated that a compromise must be made, their are legitimate citations stating that BSG 2004 was co-funded by the UK and the USA, by removing legitimate citations you are breaking ever wiki editor code. When you count the for and against's the process favours the FOR's, please accept that. Twobells (talk) 15:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be one not getting it. It first aired in the UK (which the infobox states), but that doesn't mean it was published there first, that's why the credits state the U.S. (otherwise, why wouldn't it state the UK). Stop arguing with proof which is backed up by official copyright laws and video evidence from the actual episode. Helping co-fund a project does not make it the country of origin. Understand that. Read the link I provided which officially defines "country or origin" per the Berne Convention which BSG is copyrighted under. It's not about counting "for" and "against", it's about being correct. About accepting copyright laws? Talk about being ignorant. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm perfectly acceptable with this version (though I just noticed my spelling mistake, should be "is" not "in" of course. Twobells, if you're going to positively contribute to the article, please do it so others (read: me) don't have to clean-up it up afterwards. Your disruptive and incorrect changing to "was" was incorrect (WP:TVLEAD), please format citations properly, not just a bare url thrown between ref tags (WP:LINKROT), and stop stuffing Sky1 in front of everything because they were not the primary producer, Universal was. I have no problem with the addition of said content, it's that UK is not apart of being the country of origin with the U.S. and co-funding does not equal being country of origin. You'd think providing someone with evidence from the series itself along with official copyright laws would be enough. Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Please stop using excuses to 'tidy up' article when what you are really doing is constantly reverting, you have broken the 3 revert rule again which is completely unacceptable. The reason that BSG 2004 broadcast in the UK first was because it was part of the funding agreement between SKy and Universal. Further, I don't think you quite understand film and tv production credits and how they work, when a film or tv production garner a 'production credit' it defines the origin of the production. because we don't mash names or abbreviations together on WIkipedia, best practice is to leave out 'UK-USA' and instead list the nations credited in the infobox. Copyright and production credits are entirely different when it pertains to publishing a production, please refer to many other Wikipedia tv and film co-productions such as Guardians of the Galaxy and Gravity to get a clear idea. Twobells (talk) 16:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

You've also broken the three-revert rule again (why do you always think you're exempt from this?) I'm sorry, but if I see errors, I fix them ("was to "is", proper citation formatting). I really don't know what else to say, and I think I'm done trying to talk to you, especially after you ignore sources such as the series itself and copyright laws as defining country of origin. Please leave the article alone as per Drmagi's edit, until a consensus is agreed upon. Like I said earlier, I have no problems with the additions you recently made except for the changing of the lead sentence. The "co-production" wording would be fine if Sky1 co-produced the entire series equally with Universal and the episodes aired at the same time in both regions, but that's not the case. BSG is nowhere near being as "UK" as it is "American". Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

No, please check the article's history, it is you who has broken the 3RR rule yet again. BSG 2004 was a sf tv show, it finished production and broadcast runs years ago, so the chronology is correct which you chose to revert without consultation. You have gone on reverting like crazy statign that 'there is no consensus' well, consensus was reached before Christmas, when you add all the FOR's against the No's the FOR's win out, you however, have chosen to ignore that entirely. In reference to the show being a international co-production I see that you not only cannot accept factual citations but chose to delete them so I'll leave the rest to administration. Twobells (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Um, no, BSG is a TV series, read WP:TVLEAD, that just shows your clear lack of understanding and ignorance of Wikipedia guidelines. You seem be blind that the fact I have no problem with the idea of co-production, it's rests on country of origin and your attempt to push "UK" and "Sky1" to the forefront, as evident by your edits such as "(UK-USA)" and "Sky1 - Universal TV". Your source, written by someone named Elke Weissmann does not trump official copyright laws. Okay, let's go over it again in detail *bangs head against wall*...The end credits of the first episode of which the source is a region 2 DVD reads "Country of first publication: United States of America" and below "©2004 USA Cable Productions LLC" -> the series is copyrighted under the Berne Convention -> per the Berne Convention, "The country of origin shall be considered to be, in the case of works first published in a country of the Union, that country" -> country of origin: United States as per the credits of the series itself. Drovethrughosts (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Please refer to this as a matter of urgency. Twobells (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

References