Template talk:RDM twelve colonies series

From Battlestar Wiki, the free, open content Battlestar Galactica encyclopedia and episode guide

I do think the timeline belongs here, because it actually has a major connection to the show, unlike such subjects as race, language, and the ecosystem, which has only minor impact in the show. Kuralyov 21:22, 18 September 2005 (EDT)

But the series isn't about the show, it's about the Colonies as a body. Think if it as a very long article broken into sections, because it would be impractical to put all that information into a single article. --Peter Farago 21:51, 18 September 2005 (EDT)
You don't think that history is important to the colonies? Kuralyov 22:20, 18 September 2005 (EDT)
There's an article for that already. I wrote it. Do you really think the timeline is more relevant to the Colony series that it will be for the upcoming Cylon and Fleet series? And please stop reverting. You are making me angry. --Peter Farago 22:23, 18 September 2005 (EDT)
I know there's a history article, but the timeline is just as important. How shall I put it...Think of it as a very long article broken into sections, because it would be impractical to put all that information into a single article. Also, before you continue that tone, consider two things: the timeline article existed for half a year before you signed on here, and it's not my fault if you ignored it when you were writing these articles; and just because you're started, and are working on, all of these articles does not give you exclusive right to determine what should and should not be included on them. Kuralyov 22:34, 18 September 2005 (EDT)
I'm sorry that something as minor as this is enough to make you angry. And I'd say that the timeline should belong on all three, since it affects all three. Kuralyov 22:37, 18 September 2005 (EDT)
Of course I knew about it. I wrote over half of it, and had it as a placeholder while I was working on the History article to replace the non-canonical History of the Twelve Colonies of Kobol. And it is most arrogant of you to obstinately revert the relevant changes when you have contributed little to the articles, and have nobody but yourself voicing support for your opinion. --Peter Farago 22:39, 18 September 2005 (EDT)
  • And it is most arrogant of you to obstinately revert the relevant changes when you have contributed little to the articles, and have nobody but yourself voicing support for your opinion. I don't see anyone else here voicing support for you. However, I'll refrain from pointing out that that makes you a hypocrite, and merely refer this to Joe. Kuralyov 22:43, 18 September 2005 (EDT)

Outside Views

View by Joe

After reviewing the edit history of the History of the Twelve Colonies page and this conversation, I believe that this is an issue of improper dispute resolution. Instead of consistently reverting the article (which both parties are responsible for doing), the issue should have been maturely addressed via talk pages without resorting to "ping-pong" reverting. This discussion does disturb me, particularly the apparent ownership of the article that Peter has. Yes, Peter has done much work here, as have Kuralyov -- and others! -- but I think people sometimes forget that once you write something for the wiki, you are opening your contributions to merciless editing by others. Hell, I myself have been subject to complete rewrites out of the blue, not just here but on the english Wikipedia. Will it sting? Well, yes it will, you're only human; but sometimes, ultimately, you gotta roll the hard six.

Just remember there are those who are going to agree with your edit or disagree with it; the thing that needs to be understood is that disputes regarding an edit need to be worked at by both sides. It also needs to be understood that, whether for better or for worse, one or more ideas have to be conceded, possibly by both sides. If two editors can't reach a consensus, as is apparent to me in this situation, then obviously you need to get others involved as well. Kuralyov did the right thing in letting me know about this on my talk page, however I don't believe that my say, or the say on any one person, should be the final determination on this matter. Therefore, I encourage both of you to recruit others -- in a respectful matter, of course -- and bring your views to the light. Let them help you decide what should happen.

As for the matter at hand, I believe that the history and the timeline compliment each other. I don't see why it shouldn't be included to the "Twelve Colonies Series" in some form. Perhaps it should be included on the History page in the form of a link, i.e. "This is an overview of the history of the Twelve Colonies, for a thorough breakdown refer to the Re-Imagined Series Timeline." or something to that effect. Although I don't see the problem in a link being added to the Twelve Colonies series template; just because an article is included in this template doesn't make it exclusive to that series of articles. -- Joe Beaudoin 10:13, 19 September 2005 (EDT)

Replies to "View by Joe"

Let me try and be more clear. There are two separate issues here - our behavior in this petty revert war, and the actual issue at hand, which is fairly minor. I'll offer a few words on the first one and hopefully be done with it.

Kuralyov added the link without explanation on 02:00, 18 September 2005. I disagreed and reverted it on 07:07, 18 September 2005, with a request for him to leave a note in the talk page. He reverted again at 01:20, 19 September 2005, marked the edit as minor - as if there was no contention on the issue - and then left a message in the talk page justifying himself. We ping ponged twice more after that, at which point I realized he wasn't going to let the issue rest. In my opinion, the appropriate thing to do in a situation such as this would have been to revert to the point before the controversy and then have a civilized discussion, as Ricimer and Philwelch did on Cylons, but I clearly can't enforce etiquette. And that's all I have to say about that.

As for the actual fact of the inclusion of "Timeline" within the series, please consider that the timeline is a chronicle of episode events relevant to nearly every aspect of the show. Under Kuralyov's rationalle for including it, we may as well link it from every article in the Wiki. My goal with the Twelve Colonies series was to unite a closely related set of topics that were particularly relevant to the colonials. If we include the Timeline here, why not any number of things - Battlestar, List of Pilots, etc? The reason is because - as I conceived it, anyway, and I don't think I did so poorly - the series should link together a set of general overviews. "Battlestar" will be referred to in an upcoming "Technology of the Twelve Colonies" article, just as the information from the Timeline releavant to the series is now incorporated in "History of the Twelve Colonies". --Peter Farago 13:30, 19 September 2005 (EDT)

View By Day

...and Super-Hero by Night! *ahem* Anyway... Having looked at the various pages in this template before, I kind of got the understanding that it was about how the Twelve Colonies were, before the attack. Thus, stuff that happens in the series is only relevant in as far as it would allow us to extrapolate how COlonial society operated before it was, well, no more. So we know they had a president and can probably safely suppose they had a Quorum of Twelve, etc. But things that happen after the attack aren't really pertinent to how I viewed this "series". We shouldn't assume that it was typical for officers to serve aboard a ship without leave for so long as our heros have because, before the attack, it probably wasn't. I agree with Joe that a link to the timeline is appropriate as a related article to the History of the Twelve Colonies, but anything happenning after the bombing has reletively little to do with the Colonies unless you wanted to include the events on Cylon Occupied Caprica in Caprica's history (which is viable), however, the whole timeline seems excessive and kind of tangental. My cent and a half. --Day 13:47, 19 September 2005 (EDT)

Well, if that's all anyone has to say about that, I'd like to put a "see also" link to the timeline article at the top of History and remove it from the box. Any objections? --Peter Farago 20:34, 20 September 2005 (EDT)
Okay, last call. --Peter Farago 19:02, 23 September 2005 (EDT)
I agree with Day that the stuff on the timeline that occurs after the holocaust doesn't belong in the this section because the article pertains solely to the pre-holocaust Twelve Colonies of Kobol, with the exception of information that gives us clues to colonial society. Therefore, I think we should cut the timeline in the Twelve Colonies series at Zero Hour of the Holocaust and create another Re-Imagined Series Timeline page intact someplace else.--Zareck Rocks 19:46, 23 September 2005 (EDT)
Now that doesn't make any sense at all. Not only is there not enough material to support two separate timeline articles, it would hurt the utility of the existing page. --Peter Farago 20:06, 23 September 2005 (EDT)
Create another article then, perhaps with a link somewhere in the History section to the timeline. I think you suggested that earlier, "For more information see: Re-Imagined Series Timeline." Something like that.--Zareck Rocks 20:29, 23 September 2005 (EDT)
My suggestion is: remove the timeline from the series listing, add a "see also" link to the timeline from the top of History, and keep the timeline in one article. Does that sound all right? --Peter Farago 20:33, 23 September 2005 (EDT)
Sounds good to me.--Zareck Rocks 21:02, 23 September 2005 (EDT)
Aye, For and Yes. --Day 21:36, 23 September 2005 (EDT)
Done. --Peter Farago 19:57, 24 September 2005 (EDT)