Talk:Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series)/Archive1

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

The result of the proposal was no merge

NO MERGER: It has been suggested that this article be merged with Battlestar Galactica (2003), but I think that is a bad idea. An AOL user removed the merger template tag, and it has since been restored. I agree with the AOL user (ack!) - merging the articles would be a bit odd, since it was created from a previously overlong article in the first place. Any other votes? -- Scjessey 22:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Makes no sense

We are not talking about separating seasons - all seasons of the television series appear in this article already. We are talking about merging the article on the 2004 television series with the article that discusses the reimagined Battlestar Galactica universe. That would be like merging Star Wars (a general article about the saga) with Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi (an article about a specific part of the Star Wars saga). The merger makes no sense in either case. Consider what we actually have:

• Battlestar Galactica (2003)
  • Battlestar Galactica (2003 miniseries)
  • Battlestar Galactica (2004 television series)

The Battlestar Galactica (2003) is the parent article for the mini series and television series articles. We are talking about merging one of the children with its parent. IF a merger has to occur, it makes sense to merge the siblings. Having said that, I think there is more than enough information to require the separate articles we have now. -- Scjessey 13:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Scjessey said: "We are talking about merging the article on the 2004 television series with the article that discusses the reimagined Battlestar Galactica universe. That would be like merging Star Wars (a general article about the saga) with Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi"

Not really, because Star Wars is such a vast universe that the universe itself can be discussed in terms of all the various incarnations under one article, and each of the larger examples of those can merit their own articles. There is certainly enough distinct info for each of the six feature films to merit individual articles for those. But with BG, the only two incarnations of the BG universe are the miniseries and the ongoing series. You don't need both individual articles for the mini and the ongoing and one for the universe itself. Any article on the universe could simply be a merger of the info on the mini and the ongoing. And if each of those two is so distinct and expansive that they merit their own, then, IMO, you don't need a separate one for the universe itself, which would be superfluous. Nightscream 03:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right, but surely you can see that we are talking about merging the wrong articles at least? I think the mythology and information surrounding Battlestar Galactica will begin to rival Star Wars and Star Trek in the future. That would lead to a re-splitting of any merged articles. Anyway, since the article was split in the first place, I think it should remain the way it is until/unless a significant number of Wikipedians call for a merger. So far, we only have 2 votes for a merger, and 2 votes against (if you include the AOL user). -- Scjessey 12:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

It appears there are now two people in favor of a merger, and four against. Given the time that has passed, I am removing the merger proposition. -- Scjessey 23:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the proposal was no consensus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Georgewilliamherbert 07:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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