This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Latest comment: 8 months ago5 comments2 people in discussion
TAnthony, this claim requires a secondary source, as it's not verifiable solely with reference to the episode. One would have to watch the entire series to determine when the Sharons are first referred to that way. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the comment. Actually, the fact that research would be time consuming is not a reason to require a source. This is plot summary without interpretation, and not a controversial claim, this episode is well known to have established the numbers for Threes, Fives and Eights. Anyway, because of that I'm guessing there's an episode review out there that mentions it, so in good faith I'll look for one. Thanks for the collaborative attitude, hope to see you around the BSG articles. — TAnthonyTalk01:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's not about time: it's about the fact that the cited source (the episode) does not, by itself, support the claim it's cited for, and as such the statement is original research. I would appreciate it if you could find a review. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
So I've actually had trouble finding an explicit mention of this in an external source. My phrasing in the article doesn't specify this is the first mention of "Eight" (although it is) but I'll defer to you on its inclusion.— TAnthonyTalk01:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you, appreciated. While your edit does not make such a statement, without the implication that it is the first identification, the sentence is somewhat trivial. I've removed it, per what I read as your agreement. If you still disagree I'm happy to discuss it further. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
