Talk:Battlestar Galactica (disambiguation)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Battlestar Galactica mandala This article is within the scope of WikiProject Battlestar Galactica, which aims to improve the quality and depth of Battlestar Galactica articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please edit this or any other related article, visit the project page, or take part in the project's discussion.

Contents

[edit] Why Battlestar Galactica should be referenced in the disambiguation page

  1. 03:18, 7 Apr 2005 user:Val42 Added "Battlestar Galactica (ship)"
  2. 20:08, 7 Apr 2005 user:AlistairMcMillan Remove ship link.
  3. 10:35, 21 Apr 2005 user:67.68.65.210 +ship - exactly why is this not in disambiguation? It is the name of the ship
  4. 14:58, 23 Apr 2005 AlistairMcMillan Remove link to REDIRECT.
  5. 02:18, 24 Apr 2005 user:69.156.69.243 instead of removing the link to the redirect, you should FIX IT! It is a disambiguation page, the SHIP *SHOULD* APPEAR!
  6. 20:14, 24 Apr 2005 AlistairMcMillan Revert. If you think the subject is that important, go write a non-stub article on the subject that isn't filled with speculation, then create a link here.
  7. 06:31, 26 Apr 2005 user:70.49.71.75 REVERT - this is a disambiguation page! DISAMBIGUATE! The Galactica ship disambiguation points to your bloody Battlestar compendium page, as it properly should!
  • Battlestar Galactica is the name of a ship. If someone is looking for said ship, clicking on the link to Battlestar is the proper place to go. This is a disambiguation page, it is supposed to disambiguate things. AlistairMcMillan, why do you not wish to point to the proper location for information? Is this not the function of a disambiguation page? Should it not point to the proper articles? 70.49.71.75 06:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Battlestar is perfectly adequate for describing the specific ship. No separate article is needed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:07, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I think the requester is asking if the disambiguation page should point to Battlestar itself? Correct me if I'm wrong. IMHO it should point to wherever the Battlestar Galactica information is located. 132.205.45.148 17:26, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think my last edit is an elegant solution to the problem, what do you folks think? — Phil Welch 08:48, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It looks good to me 132.205.45.148 17:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Allistair McMillan has removed the ship link again, I've reverted 132.205.46.166 00:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I added a "see also" section for the other uses of Battlestar --Viannah 00:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photoplay?

"Photoplay" covers both television and movie presentations. But I'll let "television" be used since most people don't know that the pilot was first released theatrically in Canada, Western Europe, and Japan in July, 1978 in an edited 125-minute version. Val42 23:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Intermixing

I've just been reviewing some of the Battlestar Galactica articles and have found that there is quite a bit of intermixing between the versions. I'm going to fix this as best I can. Please help me and also fix the stuff that I've separated out wrong. Val42 23:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation

WolframSiever, this is not a list of all Battlestar Galactica articles—that belongs in the articles themselves. This is a disambiguation page, which should only list links to articles about subjects which could share the actual title "Battlestar Galactica". The list should be as short as possible, to make it easy for readers to find the right link. Please have a look at MOS:DP if you want to review the disambiguation guidelines. —Michael Z. 2006-01-19 19:32 Z

[edit] Categorization

I've cleaned up the page so it complies (more or less) with WP:MOSDAB, but the categorization isn't perfect. The article on the re-imagined universe has been placed in the "TV" section for a while, but as the re-imagining is more of a concept than a specific production, I'm not sure it belongs there. If anyone can figure out something that (1) makes logical sense and (2) preserves the relatively straightforward organization, go ahead and change it... -- Fru1tbat 21:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)